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

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

 I will check with Luis and ask him to respond.
-Vikram
    On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 01:35:47 PM PDT, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:  
 
 Hi again.  Please note that we just received a bounce notice for Luis.  If someone could forward this email to Luis, we would appreciate it.  Thank you!

RFC Editor/lb

> On May 3, 2023, at 1:21 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> 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)
> 
> (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
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>