IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Extra] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly-06

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 13 March 2024 05:28 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49667C14F5EB for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 22:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FIK-fysk0h0C for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52f.google.com (mail-ed1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B468CC14E515 for <extra@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5586764bd0aso1998983a12.0 for <extra@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1710307734; x=1710912534; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=v3vgJpLuHgNcST841wy3IuP0HtzpYndMsK6SMuGsUxM=; b=Rd5Gk6IVDpKF6Sbb5Nkz1fYBggM+XkATm2BnnGBpomKBOYyed0VGQ7ypKSM2VilNQC acoeqYoTF+oM/4mebTCXd1VVQTLjMzrTfdb2E4iYk/NNbl5fGs/wPO0U6BTKO0/m12nz W3sF8fugEqd354PmlFaIE3zfQUXd+s42j37yYOFl9efrYkhZJTLI0NdBjy80AwsJiISZ MSkQnOyu09zznBBHyjnkTxhgYU8iXzZVzuhhWE26iV+7Pio/0U10YrhBwJX1wOP0i0z3 FlEd6aw6aoUnuO2wxmONEjdyF0ex/k82JLCzD3UU698WMOWGixqtNWETg+sn09YSQax8 sv3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710307734; x=1710912534; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=v3vgJpLuHgNcST841wy3IuP0HtzpYndMsK6SMuGsUxM=; b=syYItiaMgpdsQuwEcW0Vem2ZodrJdXLkdoGbovgf0hY4gI1Faxpjx9Fd4bPYYgWATI YVHeGnEYnyrM0cxC+h8K8YyT4aiebHDFS6r5i0Onae+CNfOzw5SUE2RJIRcSQ4x9mtRr Apul5dbKh7e5h+XEET9JXVOxkM9PJMe7mLtc1Y/9RH90Vd25uDL/4u8CB9t/1vf4lv3O oHIlaKJiG8z0uuaK+B4WKJ5B4fMCoLDkCQ0NuNUOeDqGQpZgvwJR5wKgmyxtEerUbrHt v0DZW4ENRFZRuBTeBDxfuIVKAGxA4QoxVhYzyvgEW3q9UP6GGK0cPcXupcTDDNBrNy3z 6wEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxqLBZ0fonEKSW/bJbwr3K25le4e5lSRz0u241vsWA/kCIU0syy be2qJ+6nLXYQHAMCiO5E28WYv1OuzYDlzArQXmPy/H9j3+629OT5JZgQ7AfSLrug/xzyUQutP0y eQFp7rdG2vUzj15ZiKLoNFTyhZgmd6F6p
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG6W+B2H5F72KGrMjFWlGmNRhylN2j2+sNzh8s5el6KMB6KY6M85A0jYqTi9mVbW+x8fol5Tie7ixbsT4StwcM=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:9c1:b0:a44:1bcf:4e8d with SMTP id r1-20020a17090609c100b00a441bcf4e8dmr2496145eje.5.1710307733568; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 22:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <170769454546.35179.3683352028983215625@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwY5p3wT0sxFmb2w2vHU+KdnYY8uDiu6FjWXYY_rUvm2cw@mail.gmail.com> <77c972d5-4ad8-c44b-b7a3-65173f11d594@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <77c972d5-4ad8-c44b-b7a3-65173f11d594@isode.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 22:28:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZiAaUPQUZtzmOGYpb5xLjdJ-_WeLPyTeMss-FFJkZsVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Cc: extra@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ea852a0613840cce"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/9PMWkzkKySWvh3IOs5np9N5xh5M>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly-06
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 05:28:56 -0000

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 3:46 AM Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
wrote:

> Hi Murray,
> On 01/03/2024 22:48, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 3:36 PM Bron Gondwana via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> Bron Gondwana has requested publication of
>> draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly-06 as Experimental on behalf of the EXTRA
>> working group.
>>
>> Please verify the document's state at
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly/
>>
>
> Why does the shepherd writeup identify RFC 3501 as a normative downward
> reference?
>
> In most recent RFCs we want to signal that an extension is compatible with
> both IMAP4rev2 (RFC 9051) and IMAP4rev1 (RFC 3501). Is this Ok?
>

So what's weird is that I asked the question, but then started the Last
Call anyway, and the datatracker didn't automatically identify the downward
reference in its auto-generated Last Call text.  This may or may not be a
problem, but I'll sort it out.

> Since this is Experimental, is it worth describing somewhere how the
> experiment will be run, who will collect results, how those will be
> communicated back to the IETF, etc.?  See, for instance, Section 7 of RFC
> 6541.  Not required, but it might be helpful to describe how this isn't
> something open-ended.
>
> Basically we want to gather more implementation experience and see that it
> doesn't break client implementations. If you think this is worth saying in
> the document, I can add.
>
Gather where?  Should we give those details?  Where is an implementer
supposed to send their results?  Just something to consider.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email