Another KEP proposal: On IMAP-metadata (annotations)

[Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems)]

Florian v. Samson wrote:
> Hi Jeroen,
> 
> Am Freitag, 15. Juli 2011 um 11:01:57 schrieb Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab
> Systems):
> > Florian v. Samson wrote:
> > > I also propose enhancing the *current* Kolab format specification with
> > > a concise statement, which is absolutely missing, currently:
> > > 
> > > Kolab-clients and -servers MUST support IMAP-metadata (annotations)
> > > according to the "IMAP ANNOTATEMORE Extension"-draft-05 [3].
> > 
> > I'm not sure what the implications are here, and I do not want to speak
> > out of turn, but if one or more client-/server- implementations need
> > significant work in order to gain compliancy with said draft, ...
> 
> Jeroen, in our opinion this simply correctly specifies the current state,
> which is already enduring for half a decade.  I order to be specific: The
> original Kolab-Patches seem to be based on that very "IMAP ANNOTATEMORE
> Extension"-draft-05 [3].
> 
> > then perhaps a more efficient approach is to cut-through and do the
> > work towards RFC 5464 (instead).
> 
> *This* is definitely *not* an option for the current spec.
> The intention is just to concisely specify, what has been unspecified, but
> implicitly demanded by the way all Kolab 2 servers have handled
> IMAP-annotations.
> 

I don't feel like arguing about it, and it was not intended to negate the 
desire to specify the status quo evolves around draft-daboo-annotatemore. I 
just wanted to point out a different approach in the case that any actual work 
would be involved -consequential to the use of *MUST* that would be added to 
the format.

> > > It took us (when doing evolution-kolab) quite a while to research which
> > > version of the draft is implemented in the Cyrus-IMAPd as of Kolab
> > > 2.2.4, as this is not noted or even hinted anywhere.  We fiercely hope
> > > that we got that analysis right.
> > 
> > You can always ask, as I'm supposed to know this from the top of my head
> > -or at least be able to assist you in the quest for such information ;-)
> 
> O.K.: Do all Kolab 2 servers releases (2.0.0 to 2.3.2 currently) implement
> IMAP-annotations as of the "IMAP ANNOTATEMORE Extension"-draft-05 [3]?
> 

Yes, although sometimes a level of compatibility with draft -11 and -15 is 
suggested (on Cyrus IMAP mailing lists).

> If so, why not stating that explicitly in the current Kolab-format
> specification?
> 

I'm not arguing against referring to the annotatemore draft, I wanted to point 
out use of the word *MUST* sounds to me like potentially work needs to be done 
in order to comply -again, I do not want to speak out of turn, client 
implementors themselves are in a way better position to confirm / deny.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

-- 
Senior Engineer, Kolab Systems AG

e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
t: +44 144 340 9500
m: +44 74 2516 3817
w: http://www.kolabsys.com

pgp: 9342 BF08