Subject: [lemonade] draft-ietf-lemonade-urlauth-07.txt nits

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:58:48 -0400

I'm fleshing out a URLAUTH implementation in Cyrus IMAP and I ran into a 
couple if nits while reading the text closely.

section BASE.7.1.URLMECH: The text states "This status response code is 
returned in an untagged OK response in response to a RESETKEY, SELECT, 
or EXAMINE command", but the example shows it being used in the tagged 
response to RESETKEY.  Is the text wrong or the example?

section BASE.7.4.URLFETCH: Per the ABNF, Contents should read "One or 
more URL/nstring pairs"

section 8: Since the GENURLAUTH command accepts a URL with no 
<mechanism> or <enc-urlauth>, shouldn't the ABNF for iurlauth be:

iurlauth = [expire] ";URLAUTH=" access [ ":" mechanism ":" enc-urlauth ]

-- 
Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     2495 Main St. - Suite 401
716-604-0088 x26      Buffalo, NY 14214
--PGP Public Key--    http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp

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

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:04:57 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Ken Murchison wrote:
> returned in an untagged OK response in response to a RESETKEY, SELECT, or 
> EXAMINE command", but the example shows it being used in the tagged response 
> to RESETKEY.  Is the text wrong or the example?

I think that the correct fix is to add a single sentence:

    This status response code is returned in an untagged OK response in
    response to a RESETKEY, SELECT, or EXAMINE command.  In the case of
    the RESETKEY command, this status response code can be sent in the
    tagged OK response instead of requiring a separate untagged OK
    response.

An untagged OK response must be used for SELECT and EXAMINE, since the 
tagged OK response for these commands already holds the READ-ONLY and 
READ-WRITE status response codes.

In my opinion, a client should accept any status response codes in either 
a tagged or an untagged response.  The inclusion of status response codes 
in tagged responses should properly be viewed as a shortcut to make the 
protocol less chatty.

Had we thought the issue more carefully, there never would have been a 
CAPABILITY response; these would always be status response codes.  An 
argument can be made to do the same for SEARCH, SORT, and THREAD.

> section BASE.7.4.URLFETCH: Per the ABNF, Contents should read "One or more 
> URL/nstring pairs"

OK.

> section 8: Since the GENURLAUTH command accepts a URL with no <mechanism> or 
> <enc-urlauth>, shouldn't the ABNF for iurlauth be:
>

Sigh, it's a bit more complicated than this.  Let me mull over it a bit.

-- 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: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:54:58 -0400

> Sigh, it's a bit more complicated than this.  Let me mull over it a bit.

Why not change genurlauth to:

genurlauth = "GENURLAUTH" 1*(SP url SP access SP mechanism)

This way, the server adds the complete ;URLAUTH triplet.

Actually this brings up another nit:

section BASE.7.4.GENURLAUTH: Per the ABNF, Contents should read "One or 
more URL/mechanism pairs" or "One or more URL/accessid/mechanism 
triplets", depending on the suggestion above.

Another question: is the client or server responsible for adding 
;EXPIRE?  An example showing this might be a nice addition.

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:31:18 -0700 (PDT)

> This way, the server adds the complete ;URLAUTH triplet.

That would be a protocol change.  The current protocol is that GENURLAUTH 
takes a rump URL as an argument; since this is what is eventually 
validated I think that this is a good thing.

> Another question: is the client or server responsible for adding ;EXPIRE?  An 
> example showing this might be a nice addition.

Given that the argument to GENURLAUTH is a rump URL, the client adds it 
since ;EXPIRE is part of the rump.

Please look at the proposed -08.  I think that the ABNF is quite a bit 
clearer.

-- Mark --

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:38:13 -0400

> Please look at the proposed -08.  I think that the ABNF is quite a bit

Where can I find it?

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:52:42 -0700 (PDT)

> > Please look at the proposed -08.  I think that the ABNF is quite a bit

I sent it in email to the list, but I guess that it's still held up in a 
moderator block due to the message size.  I'll send you a copy in private 
mail.

-- Mark --