[Extra] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-26: (with COMMENT)

Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 01 February 2021 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: extra@ietf.org
Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855343A12E5; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 09:02:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, brong@fastmailteam.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.24.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <161219892591.2230.16606034754432970648@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 09:02:06 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/-Gs7SXQwdO-b4tbp7XUE2rEdpKo>
Subject: [Extra] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-26: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:02:07 -0000

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-26: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thank you for your work on this important update to IMAP, hopefully putting it
on a better footing for the future.

I'm balloting 'No Obj' in the sense that I'm trusting the ADs (and authors and
WG) and I doubt that my review of an update to a protocol that I don't know
would bring anything new or helpful to the standardization process.

I do have a meta-process question though: I suspect that there are other
protocols/RFCs that could potentially benefit from a similar treatment (DNS
springs to mind), where the old specs have many updates.  With the benefit of
hindsight, would the authors recommend doing this for other significant old
RFCs?  Or did this turn out to be significantly more effort than anticipated?