< draft-leiba-imap-implement-guide-06.txt		draft-leiba-imap-implement-guide-07.txt >
	Network Working Group B. Leiba		Network Working Group B. Leiba
	Internet Draft IBM T.J. Watson Research Center		Internet Draft IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
	Document: draft-leiba-imap-implement-guide-06.txt April 1998		Document: draft-leiba-imap-implement-guide-07.txt May 1998
	Expires September 1998		Expires October 1998
	IMAP4 Implementation Recommendations		IMAP4 Implementation Recommendations
	Status of this Document		Status of this Document
	This document provides information for the Internet community. This		This document provides information for the Internet community. This
	document does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.		document does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
	Distribution of this document is unlimited.		Distribution of this document is unlimited.
	This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working		This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working
	documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas,		documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas,
	and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute		and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet Drafts.		working documents as Internet Drafts.
	Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six		Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
	months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by		months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
	other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet		other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet
	Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "working		Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "working
	draft" or "work in progress".		draft" or "work in progress".
	To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check		To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check the
	the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts		"1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
	Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net		Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net (Northern
	(Northern Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au		Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific
	(Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu		Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
	(US West Coast).
	A revised version of this draft document will be submitted to the RFC		A revised version of this draft document will be submitted to the RFC
	editor. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.		editor. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
	This document will expire by the end of September 1998.		This document will expire by the end of October 1998.
	1. Abstract		1. Abstract
	The IMAP4 specification [RFC-2060] describes a rich protocol for use		The IMAP4 specification [RFC-2060] describes a rich protocol for use
	in building clients and servers for storage, retrieval, and		in building clients and servers for storage, retrieval, and
	manipulation of electronic mail. Because the protocol is so rich and		manipulation of electronic mail. Because the protocol is so rich and
	has so many implementation choices, there are often trade-offs that		has so many implementation choices, there are often trade-offs that
	must be made and issues that must be considered when designing such		must be made and issues that must be considered when designing such
	clients and servers. This document attempts to outline these issues		clients and servers. This document attempts to outline these issues
	and to make recommendations in order to make the end products as		and to make recommendations in order to make the end products as
	skipping to change at page 17, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 17, line 41 ¶
	users to enter qualified mailbox names containing them, server		users to enter qualified mailbox names containing them, server
	implementations SHOULD use delimiter characters that users generally		implementations SHOULD use delimiter characters that users generally
	expect to see as name separators. The most common characters used		expect to see as name separators. The most common characters used
	for this are "/" (as in Unix file names), "\" (as in OS/2 and Windows		for this are "/" (as in Unix file names), "\" (as in OS/2 and Windows
	file names), and "." (as in news groups). There is little to choose		file names), and "." (as in news groups). There is little to choose
	among these apart from what users may expect or what is dictated by		among these apart from what users may expect or what is dictated by
	the underlying file system, if any. One consideration about using		the underlying file system, if any. One consideration about using
	"\" is that it's also a special character in the IMAP protocol.		"\" is that it's also a special character in the IMAP protocol.
	While the use of other hierarchy delimiter characters is permissible,		While the use of other hierarchy delimiter characters is permissible,
	A DESIGNER IS WELL ADVISED TO STAY WITH ONE FROM THIS SET unless the		A DESIGNER IS WELL ADVISED TO STAY WITH ONE FROM THIS SET unless the
	server is intended for special purposes only. Characters such as		server is intended for special purposes only. Implementers might be
	"-", "_", ";", "&", "#", "@", and "!" may be considered, but the		thinking about using characters such as "-", "_", ";", "&", "#", "@",
	implementer should be aware of the surprise to the user as well as of		and "!", but they should be aware of the surprise to the user as well
	the effect on URLs and other external specifications (since some of		as of the effect on URLs and other external specifications (since
	these characters have special meanings there). Also, a server that		some of these characters have special meanings there). Also, a
	uses "\" (and clients of such a server) must remember to escape that		server that uses "\" (and clients of such a server) must remember to
	character in quoted strings or to send literals instead. Literals		escape that character in quoted strings or to send literals instead.
	are recommended over escaped characters in quoted strings in order to		Literals are recommended over escaped characters in quoted strings in
	maintain compatibility with older IMAP versions that did not allow		order to maintain compatibility with older IMAP versions that did not
	escaped characters in quoted strings (but check the grammar to see		allow escaped characters in quoted strings (but check the grammar to
	where literals are allowed):		see where literals are allowed):
	C: 001 LIST "" {13}		C: 001 LIST "" {13}
	S: + send literal		S: + send literal
	C: this\%\%\%\h*		C: this\%\%\%\h*
	S: * LIST () "\\" {27}		S: * LIST () "\\" {27}
	S: this\is\a\mailbox\hierarchy		S: this\is\a\mailbox\hierarchy
	S: 001 OK LIST complete		S: 001 OK LIST complete
	In any case, a server SHOULD NOT use normal alpha-numeric characters		In any case, a server SHOULD NOT use normal alpha-numeric characters
	(such as "X" or "0") as delimiters; a user would be very surprised to		(such as "X" or "0") as delimiters; a user would be very surprised to
End of changes. 4 change blocks.
	20 lines changed or deleted		19 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/