Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:18:20 +0100,
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Hi Eric,
Thank you for your comments.
(Today is about the worst time for me to reply to your comments, as I am
going on holidays tomorrow.)
Eric Rescorla wrote:
$Id: draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-client-06-rev.txt,v 1.1 2007/10/04 22:25:53
ekr Exp $
OVERALL
This document describes an extension to IMAP to provide faster
synchronization between client and server. As far as I can
tell, the optimizations are:
- Removing one round trip needed to discover which messages
have been expunged.
Yes, if compared to the case when the client/server also implement the
CONDSTORE extension (RFC 4551).
(Actually it removed 2 round trips per mailbox synchronization.)
When compared to RFC 3501, this extension can potentially provides huge
bandwidth saving. If a client wants to synchronize flag changes in a
mailbox, the client needs to fetch flags for *all* mailboxes. For a
30,000 message mailbox that I currently have is quite painful over a
slow link.
I don't think it makes sense to compare this to 3501 without 4551,
since 4551 is already an RFC. The question is whether this document
should be advanced. What's the optimization compared
to 4551?
CONDSTORE can significantly reduce bandwidth in some cases. It doesn't
reduce the number of roundtrips.
QRESYNC reduces number of roundtrips when compared to CONDSTORE or base
IMAP. It can also reduce bandwidth in some cases (on top of the
bandwidth reduction given by CONDSTORE).
Also, you say it's "quite painful" now. How much less
painful is it with this document. How about if compression is
used. This seems like something where measurements would be nice.
Yes. Dave will answer this ;-).
DETAILED COMMENTS
S 2.
This would be improved by some overall diagram of the new and
old behavior and some measurement, even an ad hoc one, of
the performance improvement.
Ok. An older version of this document had some numbers, but people
complained about "irrelevant text".
Maybe I'm missing something, but those comparisons are to 3501,
not CONDSTORE, right?
Yes.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf