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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 03 April 2019 15:47 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 3C48812011D; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 08:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 wmcrsr7pKnGs; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 08:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f44.google.com (mail-io1-f44.google.com [209.85.166.44]) (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 9D71812011E; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 08:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f44.google.com with SMTP id v10so14461302iom.8; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 08:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
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=LwzU+RUg3TNeC3s1qZUDfLrN70/qCDQeiz1mLSPTvpk=; b=H+50ZOsyebCbQi2owsSGk5O7vC8ktDgyuyoXBr2CWJeVx7jrSJjalOsc5YdZ3NjCeC desweKg8EbKOWLrkIZvcejUBK2t4eIb2SIf3zGKPrjfrCfA1uGyowo5OiciRreqabvRO Iu4aQn0hxVtk0EavMrtdTiIjcu8OeFI2sRZKms1kI5TY1DELW5crsj/3SYE7WaT48017 K/eysFslGaA0APrKsiaIW1XTo5whNYklSAh1ybLExpALbURmMQskI9corBOKKHyvP2af FYkjdtE6yPv/vBPXPGkdUfkNJjGcv10YsLfvmr+sJIMO52EsG8HkgETUX48UDjXbnKT6 BQIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUBqD8J5MTfP3+jNvqQ9H810x2It1Q4WcOitAzM86tbBqlhFcNO BDw75XS4HlX2xJK1sx5tXn7AjMpmDyjOAD+mgXJ4nwzj
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxPo6SoX/r3dmoqnAvibGkI1mpsAmm/bM5W4QsHJQdcwbHwPxqzjCRyNOg5DHnnjNl/eXVS2bEBznmp9LdYhyE=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:97da:: with SMTP id k26mr611776ios.46.1554306423627; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 08:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155429292567.22949.15986765586199405904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155429292567.22949.15986765586199405904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 11:46:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJJw7Qy7URhUX+XAkZTBEgZA61ia4GKPta82YwkAv1J6XA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/_1zmekvsiVROcPDeyqP3MTKo720>
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 15:47:10 -0000

> 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".

> 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.

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

Barry