Subject: [lemonade] Proposal for addition and deletion of extensions to the Lemonade Profile Bis

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:07:45 +0000

Based on various discussions during the Lemonade interop in Munich, I 
would like to propose the following changes to the Lemonade Profile Bis 
document:

After reviewing existing server and client implementations, there was 
support for removing  RFC 5032 (WITHIN) from the Lemonade Profile Bis. 
The reason for this is because server implementors found interaction 
between WITHIN and CONTEXT to be too complex to implement, while client 
implementors didn't find the extension  to be useful. If somebody would 
like to argue that RFC 3052 should be in Lemonade Profile Bis, please 
speak up now.

The group also discussed possible removal of the following extensions, 
however no agreement was reached among the group members:

1). METADATA is currently a dependency for the CONVERT extension. There 
is also a proposal to use METADATA for storing search criteria on the 
server.
This is complicated extension for servers to implement.

2). LIST-EXTENDED (currently a dependency for the METADATA extension). 
The group fell that this extension by itself doesn't buy much Lemonade 
clients. However if further extensions to LIST are added to Lemonade 
Profile Bis (see below for an example), then it might be more valuable.

As a side note, all but 1 server implementations participating in the 
interop have implemented LIST-EXTENDED.

3). COMPARATOR (currently a dependency of both LIST-EXTENDED and METADATA).

This extension allows searching (and sorting) for pieces of email 
messages or annotations, using different comparators, for example 
language Unicode case-insensitive comparator or a language specific 
comparator. While there was no doubt that this is a useful extension to 
IMAP in general, only 1 client developer thought that this should be 
included into Lemonade Profile Bis.

There was also some interest in adding the following 2 extensions to the 
Lemonade Profile Bis:
1). Peter Coates' URLAUTH extended error reporting (being discussed on 
the mailing list now)
2). Dave Cridland's Extended URLFETCH for binary and converted 
parts(draft-cridland-urlfetch-binary-00.txt)
3). There was also some interest in adding STATUS data to LIST. There is 
no draft describing this yet.

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:53:35 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> After reviewing existing server and client implementations, there was support 
> for removing  RFC 5032 (WITHIN) from the Lemonade Profile Bis. The reason for 
> this is because server implementors found interaction between WITHIN and 
> CONTEXT to be too complex to implement, while client implementors didn't find 
> the extension  to be useful.

+1 for removal.

> The group also discussed possible removal of the following extensions
> [snip: METADATA, LIST-EXTENDED, COMPARATOR]

+1 for removal of all of these.  They can always be added back in the 
third revision of the profile.

> 1). Peter Coates' URLAUTH extended error reporting (being discussed on the 
> mailing list now)
> 3). There was also some interest in adding STATUS data to LIST. There is no 
> draft describing this yet.

Oppose all three for addition to bis.

+1 on listing as "to be considered for addition in the third revision".

Side note: LEMONADE is currently a very tough sell due to complexity and 
"nobody is asking for it."  Any measures that reduce complexity and 
increase demand are good things IMHO.  It's good news that SUN apparently 
takes LEMONADE seriously; but certain other big players that I talk to do 
not.  That worries me.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.