[apps-discuss] APPSDIR Early review of draft-ietf-qresync-rfc5162bis-03
Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it> Fri, 22 November 2013 15:38 UTC
Return-Path: <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFE671AE160; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:38:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wDVGojr4BUnv; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:37:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [193.206.158.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 272E71AE133; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: internal info suppressed
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:37:23 +0100
From: Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>
X-X-Sender: claudio@synx02.dir.garr.it
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-qresync-rfc5162bis.all@tools.ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1311191109250.12603@synx02.dir.garr.it>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-233511237-1384855853=:12603"
Content-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1311191111070.12603@synx02.dir.garr.it>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=garr.it; s=cyrus; t=1385134656; bh=DbDo3rze64ADdrjzxnEDqqiDR0s79gm9v1dI2Az7i/M=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject; b=eAi1vr8O4BLR9hGQccH71i3f7p1cpHDMLYObuETAjMhBZnWkS0kLrzK7G9cB7qwba WZbhKbQMJbayXkMHKoPmNQXG75hReeRsvCke+uhV0RQ3P0wG+KtssCDhgF+nJqbLsQ Jq/xL+1nWmFTqvy69uVmlaDcq+MRHEirqgnd/DwU=
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR Early review of draft-ietf-qresync-rfc5162bis-03
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:38:03 -0000
This is an Early Review, no IETF LC issued yet. I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-qresync-rfc5162bis-03.txt Title: IMAP Extensions for Conditional STORE Operation or Quick Flag Changes Resynchronization (CONDSTORE) and Quick Mailbox Resynchronization (QRESYNC) Reviewer: Claudio Allocchio Review Date: Nov 19th 2013 IETF Last Call Date: N/A IESG Telechat Date: N/A Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC. It describes in details (maybe even in too much detail in the Introduction and Overview, but I do not see this as a problem) the extensions and possible scenarios. Just some minor issues to check. Major issues: none. Minor issues: Abstract: - When you state "They must be able to guarantee that only one client can change message state (e.g., message flags) at any time." IMHO there is chance that one implementer might undestand that only one client at a time shall be granted permission to change message state/flags al ALL messages in the mailbox, while we just mean "message flags/state of the specific message you are looking at". Maybe a text like: "They must be able to guarantee that only one client can change message state (e.g., message flags of the specific message being looked up) at any time." 1. Introduction and overview - In general, this is more a "condensed summary" of the specification than an introduction or overview. Maybe a different title... I shall say that it is quite unusual to have such a precise summary of the specification (with references to following section) at the beginning of a specification. Nothing wrong, but again it make me thing the title of this section is wrong. - When you talk about QRESYNC, saying that on a mobile client it can "reduce the expense" maybe is not appropriate for a technical specification (and many people run on flat-rate data plans...) - "Since CONDSTORE is a relatively new extension, it is thought likely that clients that support it will also support QRESYNC." why not turn this into a reccomendation? Or add a reccomendation that both should be supported? 3.1.1 I suggest "One of these two response codes MUST be returned" 3.1.2 Note after Example 8. " Note: A client trying to make an atomic change to the state of a particular metadata item (or a set of metadata items) should be prepared to deal with the case when the server returns the MODIFIED" ... it's inside a "note:" ... however I have some doubts that "should" needs to be an uppercase normative SHOULD. Same (minor!) issue also later after Example 10 for the "may": "The following example is based on the example from the Section 4.2.3 of [RFC2180] and demonstrates that the MODIFIED response code may be also returned in the tagged NO response." ... again, after Example 11: "the server must not fail the operation for message 7 as part of processing "3:9" if it succeeded when message 7 was processed the first time." (MUST NOT?) 3.1.4 again as above: " The last means that the server should use the biggest value among "priv" and "shared" mod-sequences" (SHOULD?) 3.1.10 " Server implementations should follow the following rule," (SHOULD?) 6. again: " An advanced disconnected mail client should use the QRESYNC" (SHOULD?) NOTE: All the above refers to client/serve actions, that's why I've the feeling we shall use normative uppercase. Nits: none. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Claudio Allocchio G A R R Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Senior Technical Officer tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; A=garr; C=it; PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca
- [apps-discuss] APPSDIR Early review of draft-ietf… Claudio Allocchio
- Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR Early review of draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR Early review of draft-… Claudio Allocchio