Re: IMAP URLs

Chris Newman (Chris.Newman@innosoft.com)
Mon, 18 Nov 1996 12:36:23 -0800 (PST)


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 12:36:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
Subject: Re: IMAP URLs
In-Reply-To: <"josef.ifi..985:18.10.96.09.23.48"@ifi.unizh.ch>
To: Martin J Duerst <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
Cc: URI list <uri@bunyip.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.961118122912.2248H-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com>

On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Martin J Duerst wrote:
> The second problem is somewhat more basic: If you want to change
> a list of parameters, how do you indicate the absence of a parameter?
> One possibility would be to indicate the parameter again, with an
> empty value, but in some cases, an empty parameter value and the
> complete absence of the parameter will not mean the same.

That is a problem.

> Therefore, it looks very much like the specification for not
> partially inheriting parameters as in RFC 1808 makes a lot of
> sence, and is definitely not a bug, even if in some cases,
> it may not exactly be optimal.

Where the problem comes with IMAP URLs is the ;AUTH= parameter used to
specify an authentication mechanism.  This would almost always need to be
copied to relative URLs, whereas the ;UIDVALIDITY= and the ;UID=
parameters would be much less likely to be copied to a relative URL.

Now if there were some way for me to put the AUTH= in with the <login>
part of the URL, it would be a lot cleaner, but I can't think of a good
syntax.  I'd also say that as we move away from cleartext passwords, it
may become more important to specify authentication mechanisms in URLs in
general.