[EAI] Re: How to prevent up-conversion

[Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Chris Newman wrote:
 
> 1. A format compatible with requirements of RFC 3501.
> 2. A format with minimal RFC 2047/2231 turds.
> 3. The format that is in the mailstore (initially this
>    will be identical to 1, but as EAI-aware mailstores
>    are deployed it should become indistinguishable
>    from 2).
 
> The protocol must offer 1 to preserve interoperability.
> The current proposal offers options 1 and 2.
 
> And argument could be made the protocol should offer
> option 3 instead of option 2.  I would be interested in
> that debate.
 
> If you are are suggesting the protocol offer both options
> 2 and 3 in addition to 1, then I would question if the
> benefit merits the additional complexity.

I'm lost with anything related to IMAP.  Which options are
needed for RFC 4468 compatibility ?  Maybe the draft should
discuss this "somehow" (and that could be difficult because
IMAP URLs are a moving target at the moment (?)).

Frank



_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
IMA at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima