Re: [Extra] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview-03: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Wed, 03 April 2019 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 33F571201CD; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 09:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 4ylc0pU6caKD; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 09:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (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 C505112019C; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 09:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 200116b82cbe0b001424db5579cea23b.dip.versatel-1u1.de ([2001:16b8:2cbe:b00:1424:db55:79ce:a23b]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1hBid9-0007IZ-S4; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 18:20:51 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJw7Qy7URhUX+XAkZTBEgZA61ia4GKPta82YwkAv1J6XA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:20:51 +0200
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, extra@ietf.org, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, extra-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4438481-DC94-4811-AED6-C28570161DF0@kuehlewind.net>
References: <155429292567.22949.15986765586199405904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJJw7Qy7URhUX+XAkZTBEgZA61ia4GKPta82YwkAv1J6XA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1554308455;8961b61e;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1hBid9-0007IZ-S4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/VfWfgoYaJx6ub9DtlUpE5OR7xsE>
Subject: Re: [Extra] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft?= =?utf-8?q?-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview-03=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
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: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 16:20:58 -0000

Hi Barry,

> On 3. Apr 2019, at 17:46, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> 
>> A few small comments on the IANA section: It would be good to also provide a
>> name for each of the new registries (but I'm sure IANA will ask about this in
>> their review).
> 
> The two new registries *are* named there: "PREVIEW algorithms" and
> "PREVIEW priority modifiers”.

Ah, that wasn’t really clear to me from the text. I would have expected to also see IMAP in the name. Also I guess you could give IANA better instructions where to locate the registry (on the same page as the IMAP capabilities or a separate page). But I’m sure IANA will come back to you with these questions.

> 
>> However, I'm also wondering why you don't specify straight away
>> the use of the IETF Review policy as specified in RFC5226? Is there something
>> different in there that does not work for you?
> 
> The difference is that IETF Review allows for Informational as well.
> Realistically, though, I think it's just that this text was copied
> from RFC 3501.

I would think that having IETF consensus is the important part here (and less the internet status) and that's covered by the IETF Review policy.

> 
> (And it's not 5226 any more: 8126 now.)

Yes, that’s of course right. Sorry.

Mirja


> 
> Barry
>