[Extra] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace-02: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace-02: Yes

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-imap-replace/



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

Thanks for this effort. I am balloting "yes", but I have some minor (mostly
editorial) comments:

§1: Is there a reason not to use the new boilerplate from RFC 8174?

§3.4: "the intermediate states produced do not occur,"
That seems an odd statement; one might say that if a state did not occur it was
not produced. Would it make sense to just say "the intermediate states do not
occur"?

§3.5: "Unlike the APPEND command which is valid..."
Missing comma before "which".