Subject: Re: [lemonade] confusion on syntax of the access portion of the URLAUTH

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 19:35:10 -0800

Mark Crispin wrote:

> I think that we decided that iauth wasn't meaningful in IMAP URLs that 
> use URLAUTH, because we don't allow relative IMAP URLs with URLAUTH.
>
> But I forget why we used the iuserauth instead of the enc_user rule.
>
> Should we fix this?

Yes.

Note that in Dallas the consensus of the WG was to fold the URL part of 
URLAUTH document into draft-ietf-lemonade-rfc2192bis-XX.txt, so I will 
update and fix ABNF in this draft as well.

> Can I get away with doing so during AUTH48?

I hope Ted will treat this as editorial change, as inclusion of 
";auth=xxx" was certainly not the intent of the WG.

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:07:09 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> I think that we decided that iauth wasn't meaningful in IMAP URLs that use 
>> URLAUTH, because we don't allow relative IMAP URLs with URLAUTH.

I'm not sure how to fix this.

Either I have to reference enc_user (which has the now-disallowed 
underscore), or I have to change URLAUTH to use RFC2192bis as normative.

-- Mark --

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

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:32:26 -0400

Mark Crispin wrote:
>>> I think that we decided that iauth wasn't meaningful in IMAP URLs 
>>> that use URLAUTH, because we don't allow relative IMAP URLs with 
>>> URLAUTH.

As distasteful as it might be, I wouldn't be upset if we use 2192bis as 
normative.  We'd then get support for partial fetch in URLAUTH for free 
(which might be reason enough to NOT use 2192bis).

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Systems Programmer
Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer
Carnegie Mellon University

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:40:25 +0100

Mark Crispin wrote:

> underscore),

Yout mean in the name? You can define "enc-user" in URLAUTH.

> or I have to change URLAUTH to use RFC2192bis as normative.

That would be fine with me as well.

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:37:06 +0100

On Tue Apr  4 13:32:26 2006, Ken Murchison wrote:
>>>> I think that we decided that iauth wasn't meaningful in IMAP 
>>>> URLs that use URLAUTH, because we don't allow relative IMAP URLs 
>>>> with URLAUTH.
> As distasteful as it might be, I wouldn't be upset if we use 
> 2192bis as normative.  We'd then get support for partial fetch in 
> URLAUTH for free (which might be reason enough to NOT use 2192bis).

If partial fetch support ends up in URLAUTH, then it ought to end up 
in CATENATE too... And in that case, CATENATE might as well have the 
literal8 bits added, since all the implementations I know of support 
that.

Dave.
-- 
           You see things; and you say "Why?"
   But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
    - George Bernard Shaw

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 10:01:25 -0500

On 4/4/06 at 1:37 PM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:

>in CATENATE too...

For me, this is just a reference change, and perhaps adding an 
example. I guess the question is: Would we have to make a "CATENATE2" 
capability just for the addition of the 2192bis syntax?

>And in that case, CATENATE might as well have the literal8 bits 
>added, since all the implementations I know of support that.

If BINARY is going to be updated soon, I see no need to hold up 
CATENATE. BINARY can simply update the syntax:

text-literal =/ "TEXT" SP literal8

It's actually a bit more complicated for me to change it.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated