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

[Stuart Brandt <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Ben. I agree with all 3 comments and will make the necessary 
corrections.

On 10/24/2018 12:45 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 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".
>
>