[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: UID SEARCH responses

To: Mark Crispin <mrc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: UID SEARCH responses
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:32:35 +0100
Cc: ietf-imapext@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <alpine.OSX.0.999.0708111728510.14725@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-imapext/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-imapext.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-imapext-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <1186723624l.6009l.2l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.OSX.0.999.0708092231030.2581@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <10745.1186869586.755439@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.OSX.0.999.0708111728510.14725@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-imapext@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915


Mark Crispin wrote:

I disagree, I think you've misinterpreted the document. If enoughpeople disagree, and think that UID sets are somehow defined toinclude missing UIDs - which I dispute - then I suppose we couldissue a revision that deprecates ALL, replacing it with (perhaps)RANGE and MAP.
You have to do more than that. You have to deprecate all of ESEARCH,and replace it with different syntax.


(Irrespectively to whether you are right or wrong on the issue.)

I am sorry Mark, but this is nonsense. RFC 4731 does NOT define ESEARCHresponse or extended SEARCH, they are defined in RFC 4466.

Both extended SEARCH and ESEARCH response were designed to be extensible.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: UID SEARCH responses
  - From: Mark Crispin

References:
- UID SEARCH responses
  - From: Pawel Salek
- Re: UID SEARCH responses
  - From: Mark Crispin
- Re: UID SEARCH responses
  - From: Dave Cridland
- Re: UID SEARCH responses
  - From: Mark Crispin

Prev by Date: Re: UID SEARCH responses
Next by Date: RE: UID SEARCH responses
Previous by thread: Re: UID SEARCH responses
Next by thread: Re: UID SEARCH responses
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread