Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9394 <draft-ietf-extra-imap-partial-04> for your review

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

Sorry, I didn't realize this was waiting on me.

The additional normative reference is approved.

-MSK, ART AD

On Tue, May 30, 2023, 11:20 Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Vikram.  Thank you for checking in with us.
>
> Per <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9394>, we need Murray's
> approval for the addition of a Normative Reference.  Copied from email
> below:
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> *Murray, "[RFC4466]" citations have been added to the ABNF
> in Section 4, and a Normative Reference for [RFC4466] has been added. As a
> formality, please let us know if you approve the additional Normative
> Reference.
>
>
> After we receive Murray's approval, we can move this document forward for
> publication.
>
> RFC Editor/lb
>
> > On May 30, 2023, at 11:06 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > Hi Lynne & Murray
> > Is the RFC ready to be published? Do you need anything from us?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Vikram
> >
> > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 12:45:51 PM PDT, Lynne Bartholomew <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi, Alexey.  Great!  Wishing you a good weekend as well!
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > RFC Editor/lb
> >
> > > On May 5, 2023, at 9:11 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Lynne,
> > >
> > > On 05/05/2023 16:46, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
> > >> Hi, Alexey.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you very much for the updated XML file!
> > >>
> > >> We found one remaining alignment issue, which we fixed:  The line
> under the first "C: " entry in Section 3.1 was two spaces too far to the
> left (i.e., under the space just following the colon).
> > >>
> > >> Please refresh your browser to view the latest files:
> > >>
> > >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.txt
> > >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.pdf
> > >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.html
> > >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.xml
> > >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-diff.html
> > >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-rfcdiff.html
> > >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-auth48diff.html
> > >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-lastdiff.html
> > >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-lastrfcdiff.html
> > >>
> > >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-xmldiff1.html
> > >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-xmldiff2.html
> > >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-alt-diff.html
> > >>
> > >> Please let us know if further updates are needed.
> > >
> > > All looks good.
> > >
> > > Have a good weekend!
> > >
> > > Alexey
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Thanks again!
> > >>
> > >> RFC Editor/lb
> > >>
> > >>> On May 5, 2023, at 7:01 AM, Alexey Melnikov <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Lynne,
> > >>>
> > >>> On 04/05/2023 16:20, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
> > >>>> Hi, Alexey.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The spacing updates aren't coming through in our emails.  Would you
> be willing to make the updates to <
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.xml> and email us the updated
> XML?  We will then make the other file copies, post them, and ask you to
> review the spacing and alignment one more time.
> > >>> I tried to fix. How is the attached?
> > >>>
> > >>> Best Regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> Alexey
> > >>>
> > >>>> Thank you!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> RFC Editor/lb
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On May 4, 2023, at 2:52 AM, Alexey Melnikov <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Lynne,
> > >>>>> On 04/05/2023 10:48, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> > >>>>>> Hi Lynne,
> > >>>>>> On 03/05/2023 21:21, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Hi, Alexey, Vikram, Arun, and Lafa/Luis.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Alexey, we have updated this document per your note below.
> Please review our update carefully (as noted in our item (1) below), and
> let us know if there are any lingering issues with spacing and alignment.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.txt
> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.pdf
> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.html
> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.xml
> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-diff.html
> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-rfcdiff.html
> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-auth48diff.html
> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-lastdiff.html
> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-lastrfcdiff.html
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-xmldiff1.html
> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-xmldiff2.html
> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-alt-diff.html
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9394
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> After we receive
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> (1) confirmation that the current update looks good (for
> example, the alignment of the "C: 101 UID FETCH 25900:26600 (UID FLAGS"
> line, per the display in your email below, is different than the alignment
> of the "S: * 12888 FETCH (FLAGS (\Flagged \Answered" line that follows it;
> this looks a bit odd to us)
> > >>>>>> In the text version I now see:
> > >>>>>> 3.4. Use of "PARTIAL" and "CONDSTORE" IMAP Extensions Together
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This section is informative.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The PARTIAL FETCH modifier can be combined with the CHANGEDSINCE
> > >>>>>> FETCH modifier [RFC7162].
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> // Returning information for the last 30 messages in the UID range
> > >>>>>> // that have any flags/keywords modified since MODSEQ 98305
> > >>>>>> C: 101 UID FETCH 25900:26600 (UID FLAGS
> > >>>>>> ) (PARTIAL -1:-30 CHANGEDSINCE 98305)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The closing ) should be aligning vertically with "1", not with
> "C". There are also 2 spaces after the first ")", it should be just 1.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> S: * 12888 FETCH (FLAGS (\Flagged \Answered
> > >>>>>> ) MODSEQ (98306) UID 25997)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I think this is fine. Basically I asked you to break the line at
> a different point to make sure there are no invisible trailing spaces on
> any of the lines.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> S: * 12890 FETCH (FLAGS () MODSEQ (98312) UID 26600)
> > >>>>>> S: 101 OK FETCH completed
> > >>>>> I now noticed a similar problem in examples in Section 3.1:
> > >>>>> // Let's assume that the A01 SEARCH without PARTIAL would return
> > >>>>> // 23764 results.
> > >>>>> C: A01 UID SEARCH RETURN (PARTIAL -1:-100) UNDELETED
> > >>>>> UNKEYWORD $Junk
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The above needs 2 extra leading spaces inserted, so that "U"
> aligns with "0".
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> S: * ESEARCH (TAG "A01") UID PARTIAL (-1:-100 ...)
> > >>>>> // 100 most recent results in set syntax elided.
> > >>>>> S: A01 OK Completed.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> // Let's assume that the A02 SEARCH without PARTIAL would return
> > >>>>> // 23764 results.
> > >>>>> C: A02 UID SEARCH RETURN (PARTIAL 23500:24000) UNDELETED
> > >>>>> UNKEYWORD $Junk
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2 more leading spaces needed.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> C: A03 UID SEARCH RETURN (PARTIAL 1:500) UNDELETED
> > >>>>> UNKEYWORD $Junk
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2 more leading spaces needed.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> C: A04 UID SEARCH RETURN (PARTIAL 24000:24500) UNDELETED
> > >>>>> UNKEYWORD $Junk
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2 more leading spaces needed.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> S: * ESEARCH (TAG "A02") UID PARTIAL (23500:24000 ...)
> > >>>>> // 264 results in set syntax elided;
> > >>>>> // this spans the end of the results.
> > >>>>> S: A02 OK Completed.
> > >>>>> S: * ESEARCH (TAG "A03") UID PARTIAL (1:500 ...)
> > >>>>> // 500 results in set syntax elided.
> > >>>>> S: A03 OK Completed.
> > >>>>> S: * ESEARCH (TAG "A04") UID PARTIAL (24000:24500 NIL)
> > >>>>> // No results are present; this is beyond the end of the results.
> > >>>>> S: A04 OK Completed.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> (2) approval from Murray
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> we can move this document forward for publication.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thank you!
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On May 3, 2023, at 12:37 PM, Luis alves <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hi Lynne
> > >>>>>>>> Partial RFC after the final edit looks good to me, I approve
> the publication of the partial rfc.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks a lot & Regards
> > >>>>>>>> Lafa
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Regards, Luis Alves
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Email: [e-mail]
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On May 3, 2023, at 11:16 AM, Arun Prakash Achuthan <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > >>>>>>>> The Partial RFC text looks good to me after the last edit. I
> approve publication of the partial rfc.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks
> > >>>>>>>> Arun
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On May 3, 2023, at 11:07 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hi Lynne
> > >>>>>>>> PARTIAL RFC after the final edit from Alexey looks good to me
> and is ready for publication from my side.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks a lot & Regards
> > >>>>>>>> Vikram
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On May 3, 2023, at 3:24 AM, Alexey Melnikov <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Lynne,
> > >>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2023 17:37, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi, Alexey. Great; thank you for the quick reply!
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> One final small thing and I am ready to approve the RFC for
> publication:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 3.4. Use of "PARTIAL" and "CONDSTORE" IMAP Extensions Together
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> This section is informative.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The PARTIAL FETCH modifier can be combined with the
> CHANGEDSINCE
> > >>>>>>>>> FETCH modifier [RFC7162].
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> // Returning information for the last 30 messages in the UID
> range
> > >>>>>>>>> // that have any flags/keywords modified since MODSEQ 98305
> > >>>>>>>>> C: 101 UID FETCH 25900:26600 (UID FLAGS)
> > >>>>>>>>> (PARTIAL -1:-30 CHANGEDSINCE 98305)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The above line is missing a space, i.e. the leftmost "("
> should be aligned with 0 on the line above it. If you think this is too
> subtle, it is probably better to move the closing ")" from the line above,
> i.e.
> > >>>>>>>>> C: 101 UID FETCH 25900:26600 (UID FLAGS
> > >>>>>>>>> ) (PARTIAL -1:-30 CHANGEDSINCE 98305)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Does this work for you?
> > >>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>> Alexey
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 2023, at 9:33 AM, Alexey Melnikov <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lynne,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2023 17:23, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Alexey and *Murray.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> *Murray, "[RFC4466]" citations have been added to the ABNF
> in Section 4, and a Normative Reference for [RFC4466] has been added. As a
> formality, please let us know if you approve the additional Normative
> Reference.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, regarding this item -- please confirm that
> "flags/keywords" in Section 3.4 should not be "flags / key words".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I confirm that "keywords" is intended in Section 3.4.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> NEW:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Other capitalized words are IMAP key words [RFC3501]
> [RFC9051] or key
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> words from this document.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (So basically I changed the first "keywords" to "key
> words").
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Alexey
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> = = = = =
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The latest files are posted here:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.txt
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.pdf
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.xml
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-diff.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-rfcdiff.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-auth48diff.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-lastdiff.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-lastrfcdiff.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-xmldiff1.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-xmldiff2.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-alt-diff.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2023, at 4:54 AM, Alexey Melnikov <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lynne,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/04/2023 02:36, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Alexey and *AD (Murray).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, thank you for the quick reply! We have updated
> this document per your notes below.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Murray, "[RFC4466]" citations have been added to the ABNF
> in Section 4, and a Normative Reference for [RFC4466] has been added. As a
> formality, please let us know if you approve the additional Normative
> Reference.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, regarding our question 8) ('We don't see
> "CONDSTORE" ...'): Thank you for mentioning CHANGEDSINCE! We updated per
> your "Alternatively" note and added RFC 7162 to the new Informative
> References section. Please let us know if it should be Normative instead.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A couple follow-up items for you:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding our questions 10) and 11), and the addition of
> "[RFC4466]": As RFC 4466 is only cited in the ABNF, we now receive the
> following warning:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warning: Unused reference: There seems to be no reference
> to [RFC4466] in the document
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be appropriate to add a textual citation for
> [RFC4466] as follows?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This extension is compatible with both IMAP4rev1 [RFC3501]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and IMAP4rev2 [RFC9051].
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps (if correct):
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This extension is compatible with IMAP4 [RFC4466],
> IMAP4rev1
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [RFC3501], and IMAP4rev2 [RFC9051].
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC 4466 doesn't define IMAP4. It defines a collection of
> ABNF extensions to be used by IMAP extensions.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So how about the following alternative:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This extension is compatible with both IMAP4rev1 [RFC3501]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and IMAP4rev2 [RFC9051].
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is unchanged. Then add an extra sentence:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This extension uses IMAP extensibility rules defined in
> [RFC4466].
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> = = = = =
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apologies -- we found that this line in Section 3.4 was
> also too long for the text output. We added a line break as follows. Please
> let us know if the line break should be placed somewhere else:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Previously:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> S: * 12888 FETCH (FLAGS (\Flagged \Answered) MODSEQ
> (98306) UID 25997)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> S: * 12888 FETCH (FLAGS
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (\Flagged \Answered) MODSEQ (98306) UID 25997)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can do that, if you have a space at the beginning of
> the second line (to make sure that it is visible to the right of the "*" on
> the previous line.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Another possible alternative:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> S: * 12888 FETCH (FLAGS (\Flagged \Answered
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ) MODSEQ (98306) UID 25997)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ")" is aligned with "*".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In regards to the 2 remaining editorial comments:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) In Section 2, the last paragraph:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> OLD:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Other capitalized words are IMAP keywords [RFC3501]
> [RFC9051] or key
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> words from this document.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> NEW:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Other capitalized words are IMAP key words [RFC3501]
> [RFC9051] or key
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> words from this document.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (So basically I changed the first "keywords" to "key
> words").
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Changing <"$" marker would contain all> to <"$" marker
> would contain references to all> everywhere would be fine with me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> = = = = =
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The latest files are posted here (please refresh your
> browser):
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.txt
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.pdf
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394.xml
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-diff.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-rfcdiff.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-auth48diff.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-alt-diff.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-xmldiff1.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-xmldiff2.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9394-alt-diff.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review our latest updates carefully, and let us
> know if anything is incorrect.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 14, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Alexey Melnikov <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/04/2023 22:47, [e-mail] wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Authors,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please
> resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML
> file.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Would the following update to the
> document title be more descriptive?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMAP Paged SEARCH & FETCH Extension
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMAP PARTIAL Extension for Paged SEARCH and FETCH -->
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your suggestion looks good to me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviated (running) document title
> (in PDF output):
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you like to make this title more descriptive,
> along the lines
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the running title for<
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4731.txt>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ("IMAP4 Extension to SEARCH")?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMAP PARTIAL
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMAP PARTIAL Extension -->
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds good to me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] We found these comments in the original
> XML file.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have they been addressed?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Confusion: IMAP keyword is something else. Use
> "Protocol elements" instead?"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "references to" between the words "contain" and "all"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (The text output appears as "the "$" marker would
> contain all ...") -->
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will come back to you on these.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond
> those that appear in the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> title) for use on<https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>.
> -->
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Abstract: Per our style guidelines, we
> added the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following text at the end of this section:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This document updates RFCs 4731 and 5267.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let us know any concerns. -->
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This looks fine to me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1: We expanded "UID" as
> "Unique Identifier"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per RFC 9051. If this is incorrect, please provide the
> correct
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result (message with the lowest matching UID) is 1;
> thus, the first
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 500 results would be obtained by a return option of
> "PARTIAL 1:500",
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the second 500 by "PARTIAL 501:1000".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result (message with the lowest matching Unique
> Identifier (UID)) is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1; thus, the first 500 results would be obtained by a
> return option
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "PARTIAL 1:500" and the second 500 by "PARTIAL
> 501:1000". -->
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is fine.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the artwork elements in
> this document, and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let us know if anything should be listed as sourcecode.
> If
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt> does not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain an applicable type that you would like to see
> in the list,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please let us know.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please also note that we used sourcecode for the ABNF
> in Section 4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per<
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt>. -->
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.4: We don't see "CONDSTORE"
> used anywhere
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else in this document. Would you like to add text and a
> citation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for CONDSTORE? We could add RFC 7162 as a Normative
> Reference (which
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would require AD approval) or as an Informative
> Reference.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Per "This section is informative", it appears that the
> latter might
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be acceptable.)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.4. Use of PARTIAL and CONDSTORE IMAP extensions
> together
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This section is informative.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Possibly:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.4. Use of PARTIAL and CONDSTORE IMAP Extensions
> Together
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This section is informative.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See [RFC7162] for details regarding the CONDSTORE
> extension. -->
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would be fine. Alternatively you can add
> "[RFC7162]" after CHANGEDSINCE in the second sentence of this section.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.4: This line is too long for
> the text output.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently receive this warning:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warning: Too long line found (L287), 6 characters
> longer than 72 characters:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C: 101 UID FETCH 25900:26600 (UID FLAGS) (PARTIAL
> -1:-30 CHANGEDSINCE 98305)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the suggested line break is not correct, please let
> us know where
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the break should be placed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The PARTIAL FETCH modifier can be combined with the
> CHANGEDSINCE
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FETCH modifier.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Returning information for the last 30 messages in
> the UID range
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // that have any flag/keyword modified since modseq
> 98305
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C: 101 UID FETCH 25900:26600 (UID FLAGS) (PARTIAL
> -1:-30 CHANGEDSINCE 98305)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suggested:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The PARTIAL FETCH modifier can be combined with the
> CHANGEDSINCE
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FETCH modifier.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Returning information for the last 30 messages in
> the UID range
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // that have any flags/keywords modified since modseq
> 98305
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C: 101 UID FETCH 25900:26600 (UID FLAGS)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (PARTIAL -1:-30 CHANGEDSINCE 98305)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest inserting an extra space before "(PARTIAL"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... -->
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: The ABNF for fetch-modifier
> is defined in RFC 4466. Would you like to add a comment to the ABNF and a
> reference to RFC 4466? If so, should the reference be normative or
> informative?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fetch-modifier =/ modifier-partial
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fetch-modifier =/ modifier-partial
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;; <fetch-modifier> from [RFC4466]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well spotted. Yes, please add RFC 4466 as a normative
> reference.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: The ABNF includes a comment
> with a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference to [IMAP-ABNF]. However, [IMAP-ABNF] is not
> used
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere else in this document. Does this refer to a
> specific
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC (maybe RFC 4466), or is a reference listing missing
> in the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Normative References section?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;; All conform to <search-return-opt>, from
> [IMAP-ABNF]/[RFC9051]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Possibly:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;; All conform to <search-return-opt> from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;; [RFC4466] and [RFC9051]. -->
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, IMAP-ABNF is supposed to be RFC 4466.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Acknowledgments: No one is listed as
> an editor of this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document. May we change "Editor of this document" to
> "The authors"?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, please.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Editor of this document would like to thank the
> following people who
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided useful comments or participated in discussions
> of this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document: Timo Sirainen and Barry Leiba. -->
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language"
> portion of the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> online Style Guide at
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in
> particular, but this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should still be reviewed as a best practice. -->
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] Please let us know if any changes are
> needed for the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently
> in this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document. Please let us know which form is preferred.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modseq / MODSEQ
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's use the uppercase version. (RFC 7162 also uses
> "mod-sequence")
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partial results (title of Section 3.1) /
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PARTIAL result(s) (9 instances)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the section title is using it more informally,
> so leaving it as is is fine.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search result(s) (4 instances) / SEARCH result(s) (3
> instances)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (We see "FETCH results" in Section 3.3.)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's use "SEARCH result(s)" everywhere.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searches (5 instances) / SEARCHes (1 instance)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (We see 1 instance of "fetches" in Section 1.)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think leaving 1 "SEARCHes" is fine. It is a very minor
> semantical difference emphasizing searches as done by the SEARCH command.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) Should quoting of capability names be made
> consistent?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "PARTIAL" capability
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONTEXT=SEARCH capability
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PARTIAL IMAP capability -->
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using quotes everywhere around capability names is
> probably the best. (And the same for CONDSTORE).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> <rfc9394.xml>
> > >
> >
>
>