Re: [imapext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-08: (with COMMENT)

Dear SM,

Yes, both text refers to the same examples in Section 2.

Regards,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: imapext [mailto:imapext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of S Moonesamy
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 6:40 PM
To: Narendra Singh Bisht; Jayantheesh S B
Cc: draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension@ietf.org; imapext@ietf.org; imapapnd-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [imapext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-08: (with COMMENT)

Hi Naren, Jay,
At 15:15 06-01-2016, Ben Campbell wrote:
>The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extens
>ion/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>- section 2, last paragraph:
>
>It was not obvious to me if "An IMAP client SHOULD be able to parse 
>both formats. " meant both STATUS and LIST, or both global and 
>per-mailbox. I assume the former.

In the first paragraph of Section 2 there is the following:

   "An IMAP server can publish the APPENDLIMIT capability in two
    formats."

There are then two examples of the formats.  In the last paragraph of Section 2 there is:

   "An IMAP client SHOULD be able to parse both formats."

Does that refer to the two examples in Section 2?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd) 

_______________________________________________
imapext mailing list
imapext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext