Re: [Extra] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-04

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 8:59 PM Bron Gondwana via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Bron Gondwana has requested publication of
> draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-04 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the
> EXTRA working group.
>
> Please verify the document's state at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress/
>

AD Review:

Section 4: Why the SHOULD in bullet 2 and the SHOULD NOT in bullet 3?
Seems to me these either ought to be MUST/MUST NOT, or it should be fine to
repeat the PROGRESS value as a definite indication that something's stuck
if the server so chooses.  I'm wondering what interoperability problem
we're trying to avoid, and why we're giving implementers a choice here.
You get into this later in Section 4, but that didn't really clear it up
for me.

Section 4, a very minor point: Since GOAL must always be strictly more than
PROGRESS, I struggled a bit with the sentence "The command is completed
when PROGRESS equals GOAL."  My understanding is that the server will never
issue such a result; it would just issue a completion.

I'm going to send this to Last Call now, and we can sort these out as part
of that process rather than serializing.

Thanks,
-MSK