Re: [imapext] WGLC for draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-02

Thank you for your review!

On 10/02/2016 15:25, Jayantheesh S B wrote:
> This version of document looks fine for me.
>
> I see text "non-synchronizing" is not mentioned consistent across the document.
> Some places its mentioned as "non- synchronizing" and in some place I see "non synchronizing".
Yes, it would be a good idea to make this consistent in the document.
> Also I see To Do section in the document with below text.
>
> "Exact semantics of LITERAL- is still in flux."
>
> This section can be removed once if the semantics has been defined.
Oops. I think we are more or less decided on semantics, so I will remove 
the section.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: imapext [mailto:imapext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of S Moonesamy
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 3:17 PM
> To: imapext@ietf.org
> Subject: [imapext] WGLC for draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-02
>
> Hello,
>
> This message starts a Working Group Last Call for "IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals" (draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-02).  The I-D can be accessed at
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-02
>
> This Working Group Last Call will end on Saturday 20th February.  Please review the I-D and send comments to the imapext@ietf.org mailing list.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy (as imapapdb WG Chair)
>
> _______________________________________________
> imapext mailing list
> imapext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext
>
> _______________________________________________
> imapext mailing list
> imapext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext