From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:22:23 +0100

X-Accept-Languae 
> servers which execute client commands out-of-order so that such 
> binding would be necessary?  Does the WG believe changing the 
> fundamental IMAP model in this case is the best way to accomplish this 
> specific task?
>
> 3.  VANISHED response sometimes but not always implying EXISTS change
>
> The VANISHED response is used in two different ways: one to replace 
> the EXPUNGE response to indicate a change in mailbox state at that 
> moment (including an implicit EXISTS update), and one to indicate that 
> messages were removed before the mailbox was selected in response to a 
> QRESYNC select modifier or VANISHED UID FETCH modifier.  I suspect the 
> logic the client must use to distinguish these cases is a bit subtle.  
> Perhaps a simplification to VANISHED to address issue 2 & 3 should be 
> considered?

Based on subsequent discussion with Chris: QRESYNC will be updated to 
rename the TAG parameter to EARLIER and remove the associated command 
tag, as it was not used. Text describing that the VANISHED response with 
the EARLIER parameter doesn't decrement EXISTS would be also clarified.

Note, that the VANISHED response never changed the IMAP model. The TAG 
parameter was only used to distinguish two cases: earlier expunged 
messages and currently expunged messages.

> 4. Complex interaction with CONDSTORE and UIDPLUS
>
> This extension requires CONDSTORE and requires the server to advertise 
> CONDSTORE.  That means there's a silly state where the server 
> advertises QRESYNC but not CONDSTORE.  Perhaps there's a simple way to 
> eliminate the silly state?  Furthermore, there is a great deal of 
> variation in server behaviors and client codepaths between un-extended 
> IMAP, IMAP + CONDSTORE, IMAP + CONDSTORE + QRESYNC and IMAP + 
> CONDSTORE + QRESYNC + UIDPLUS.  Is the WG really comfortable with this 
> complexity?  Perhaps QRESYNC should require UIDPLUS in addition to 
> CONDSTORE?  Perhaps QRESYNC is really a refinement of CONDSTORE rather 
> than an extension to it, so perhaps QRESYNC should subsume CONDSTORE 
> and obsolete it?

Thinking more about this: clients that would like to use the VANISHED 
responses would also likely want to use UID EXPUNGE (i.e. the UIDPLUS 
extension).
So personally I am slightly in preference of making the UIDPLUS a 
requirement for all QRESYNC-compliant servers.

However, if we do this change, it would make no difference as far as 
Lemonade Profile Bis is concerned, because servers are required to 
implement both extensions anyway.
And existing IMAP clients already have to deal with absence of UIDPLUS 
extension.

Having said that I would like to poll the WG regarding making QRESYNC 
require UIDPLUS.

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