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

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Alexey

I appreciate your quick return and your partial answers.

I smiled when reading "As an editor, I do like to pick some examples demonstrating case-insensitivity and other unusual conditions."

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 1 February 2021 at 19:19
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>om>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>rg>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>om>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>rg>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-26: (with COMMENT)

    Hi Éric,

    Thank you for your review. Comments below.

    On 01/02/2021 15:23, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > COMMENT:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Thank you for the work put into this document. Collecting and aggregating all
    > the previous updates is really useful. The numerous examples are really helpful.
    >
    > I must admit though that "unpublished IMAP2bis protocols" makes me wonder why
    > it is mentioned if not public...
    It was popular at the time and I believe there was a draft at some 
    point. This actually predates my participation in IETF.
    >   Also, "network connection" is kind of weird
    > for an Internet based on connectionless IP layer... ;-)
    >
    > Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
    > appreciated), and some nits.
    >
    > I hope that this helps to improve the document,
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > -éric
    >
    > == COMMENTS ==
    >
    > -- Section 2.3.2 --
    > Why two flags associated to "junk" but only one for "phishing" ?
    > -- Section 8 --
    > This example uses LOGIN method that is not recommended on plain text connection
    > (see 6.2.3). Perhaps worth saying that this example works over implicit TLS or
    > better use a AUTH method?
    Yes, good idea. Apparently nobody looks at this except for IESG ;-).
    > == NITS ==
    >
    > -- Section 4.3 --
    > "synchonizing literal" ?
    Fixed, thank you :-).
    > -- Section 6.3.12 --
    > The example contains "Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII" while in most
    > email headers that I have seen, the value is in lowercase... May I assume that
    > case is *not* relevant (because not part of the email message but part of IMAP)
    > ? If so, this value reads lie SHOUTING to me ;-)

    This is defined in RFC 2045, which defines Content-Type header field 
    syntax. Basically, all three: the media type ("TEXT/PLAIN"), parameter 
    name ("CHARSET") and charset parameter value ("US-ASCII") are all 
    defined to be case insensitive.

    So no, this has nothing to do with IMAP.

    As an editor, I do like to pick some examples demonstrating 
    case-insensitivity and other unusual conditions.

    > -- Section 6.4.4 --
    > The example dates are in 1994... perhaps worth updating ?  ;-) Other examples
    > are in 2006

    This is a revision of RFC 3501, which is a revision of RFC 2060, etc.

    We could update examples, but they are still valid. Changes would most 
    likely affect day-of-the-week, which might in turn change literal 
    sizes... So changes can introduce new bugs.

    Best Regards,

    Alexey