Re: [Extra] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-26: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> (1) Section 6.3.9 says:
>
> "The LIST command SHOULD return its data quickly, without undue delay.
>    For example, it SHOULD NOT go to excess trouble to calculate the
>    \Marked or \Unmarked status or perform other processing"
>
> The second sentence seems like it does not warrant normative language given
> that it is giving an example

Indeed; this slipped through from the original.  I agree that we don't
need the same BCP 14 statement twice.

> (2) There are some recurring example names -- owatagusiam, blurdybloop, etc. --
> that could probably be replaced with names that are a little more
> accessible/obvious to new readers. Also, there are a lot of examples with user
> names from the same cultural/linguistic context -- smith, fred, eric, etc.
> Neutralizing or diversifying those names would improve the document.

This harks back to older times and to the late Mark Crispin, who liked
those sorts of things.

I agree with you.

That said, there are two things:

1. As Alexey has pointed out with other comments, changing these often
involves carefully checking literal lengths, RFC822-SIZE values, and
other such, and has a high potential to introduce errors.

2. I have some thought toward keeping Mark's voice in here, and that
mostly shows up in the examples.  Part of me would rather not scrub it
out.

Alexey, thoughts?

Barry