[Extra] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-25: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-25: 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Various non-blocking questions/comments:

2.3.1.1 what would happen if the UID approached 2^32 due to a lifetime of spam
or something? The server can increment the validity value, but doesn’t that
make earlier email unreferenceable except via sequence number?

2.3.2 In the $Phishing definition, do you mean the user agent SHOULD (in caps)
display an additional warning message?

4.1.1 the last statement, “ the "*" value for a sequence number is not
permitted.”, is oddly placed, enough that it almost reads like a typo where you
meant UID. A clearer statement might be “The ‘*’ value is permitted for UIDs
but not sequence numbers.”