Re: [imapext] OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-08
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 05 January 2016 22:35 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AA01B2D96; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 14:35:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 9dyFE2wE8Lm5; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 14:35:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4BE1AC3E9; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 14:35:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.227.85.115]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u05MYiC8024551 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Jan 2016 14:34:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1452033297; x=1452119697; bh=wxbYVeEHnx17y/6mqZMaJVn6/VLcG437/a4jW1jWF/w=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=QzDlnEfnyZitZ00mI+DMBIpijpPLKt5C5ivSi5OYWMAd5myTJskLM/HxAJ0tDz/Zd mcMeOKUJTSsLTP0f317429u5CJnorln1L3go6IfrOwiTsXWcb78C1XhD050Gpdmg7Z F/2jzATuUWrUSB/v5s0+knTgZrje+SycwYVNVWlE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1452033297; x=1452119697; i=@elandsys.com; bh=wxbYVeEHnx17y/6mqZMaJVn6/VLcG437/a4jW1jWF/w=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=vFWxpBj1kUWmjS1AGTMX+brej3UTtS39/TueqwOZ2Qx7D9crkPiKWV5pIf3IYfjas pjHiyrKkjL0MQeSQuWb6/tpfpXftStwvzdebr3Z2SlBqFNg8VHhSZX/9tFPYY2LvLm o9IgOZ778vUNQj1axNrOHk0nfImrKZ5QFs3KNeHA=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20160105142257.0d8dfce0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 14:33:16 -0800
To: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension.all@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <437CE97B-E4A2-4AB6-A340-2DD21733809D@encrypted.net>
References: <437CE97B-E4A2-4AB6-A340-2DD21733809D@encrypted.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/5EiywrRfbPWm573drrstEwgue8I>
Cc: imapext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [imapext] OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-08
X-BeenThere: imapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IMAP extensions <imapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/imapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:imapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:35:20 -0000
Hi Sarah, At 10:58 04-01-2016, Sarah Banks wrote: >The document is ready with a minor nit/comment. Thanks for the review. >This draft discusses an extension to IMAP, where a server can use >APPENDLIMIT to communicate to the client the maximum mail upload >size, via several commands (status, list, capability). The document >cites a particularly useful use case, of mobile devices and resource >contention. I found the document fairly well written, and I have a >single comment: > >Section 3.1 - is the should in "should issue a STATUS >command" normative? It reads as if it could be... The "should" in the above is not normative. The usage of a RFC 2119 "SHOULD" in the sentence would be incorrect as there isn't any other way to get the desired Section 3.1 "STATUS response". >Authors, thanks for making me research "hone in" versus "home in" >(ala section 6). :) I'll credit Barry for that. :-) Regards, S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)