IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 04 February 2021 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 8120E3A0CFC; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 07:32:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XVmMumrVYKhb; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 07:32:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-f176.google.com (mail-lj1-f176.google.com [209.85.208.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37C293A15B9; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 07:32:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-f176.google.com with SMTP id s18so3885703ljg.7; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 07:32:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iM1G8OeqMlt0keoNNwCJHo2vAcs6zwQV4avr+GMWrYM=; b=buX5wU20nKghyQLGscLNJIJKDNwCu3A5lZ0/mhqr46SgH99nltASnZRmcIF00NK+4Q Yxx/yRmzF5DgSWKaFKUWV10lwlmrO0jqCtdqRWgtMfHV7DgnvRXbLyVzyP8UXTLoqxkZ zotxQRDUsR0b8MxXrKbpbwsNMUiyDWUk+i2cxafG3s7O9SfR/roTVkEP0r9tg1OfZYxB tUF4D60goxCMQDS5c5f1rjrdNjPxgoZz15Jit/8aZc5wa94cR9HRW1LQBTKPh+C4XibW s0lE2CRwc0TIS+Sjko23p87bziGB2NA3CETK3KFQ/jiFBN7TRoO//w4SZDnCIsJxiyCJ IuVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530auFdf/uL+kEePbyQUhjdI7K0WdGRuzobudmsH2V0T9MDmWFlO kZQ/Yobl48rjsLq1h+ngOLg760TvyRJakHVukLeCwF1+GGE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxqoDfYce8nSFSyDPUjqtLy3kknA5vmPp+ZSdkFzJxoilPHySrZh70slgxsAHsEZbkebKOcHNGj5f4WtM6J+TI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b5cd:: with SMTP id g13mr5117807ljn.248.1612452736276; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 07:32:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161228843386.9750.10522178607825201429@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJJqMMR4er0Qz+pccOEKe0+F+ABiBSijifOyc3dK7ZqvhA@mail.gmail.com> <9D024588-53BA-47AD-9AFD-46E2E9C350BD@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <9D024588-53BA-47AD-9AFD-46E2E9C350BD@cooperw.in>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 10:32:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CALaySJLNnD0gJyjsMjQODC_vKLFQPJMf_oBnfp_hS2nrSD+2Tg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/LNySqpkGJfkg3IpsbrpwCYAhfG0>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-26: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 15:32:20 -0000

> > 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.
>
> The point of raising it in the first place was about perpetuating the biases of the earlier documents/authors.
> The base RFCs will remain in the archive for people to read.

Yes, true, and that takes care of point 2.  You're right.

Do you think it's worth the risk of introducing errors (point 1)?

Barry

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email