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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

> On Feb 2, 2021, at 1:12 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> (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.

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.

Alissa
 

> 
> Alexey, thoughts?
> 
> Barry