Re: [Extra] AD Review of draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,

Replying to some remaining editorial comments:

On 04/01/2021 08:18, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> Section 5.1
>
>
> There’s a reference “see the Formal Syntax” which could probably 
> benefit from a section number reference as well.  This is actually 
> something I’d thought about many times earlier in the document up to 
> this point, but I’m finally saying something here; some of them were 
> clear references like this, while others were references to commands 
> or flags that are “described elsewhere in this document”.
>
I fixed several cases of missing references. If you find anything else I 
missed, please let me know.

> Section 6.4.4.4
>
>
> I think the inline comments in the various examples don’t really need 
> to be inline.  They could just as easily be prose below each example.
>
For some examples this might be more involved than for others. Are you 
happy for this to be addressed directly with RFC Editor via an XML comment?

> Section 7.2 and its subsections
>
>
> A fair bit of this text is repeated verbatim from earlier sections and 
> should probably be consolidated.  I really noticed this when I hit 
> Section 7.2.3 where, for instance, \HasChildren is defined both here 
> and in Section 6.3.9.5, with the paragraphs in both sections being 
> identical. However, now that I look earlier in 7.2.2, I see the same 
> issue.
>
I struggled with some of this, as initially not all mailbox attributes 
were listed in Section 7.2.3 (LIST Response). In other sections it is 
had to talk about some options without introducing the corresponding 
mailbox attribute(s) first. So it would really help to have some 
specific suggestions on where you think text can be dropped.

Best Regards,

Alexey