Re: [imapext] qresync WG adoption call

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 20/05/2013 20:53, Michael M Slusarz wrote:
> Quoting Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> We now have two drafts by Alexey published:
>>
>>  - draft-melnikov-rfc4551-bis-00 (CONDSTORE)
>>  - draft-melnikov-5162bis-00 (QRESYNC)
>>
>> I'd like to propose that the working group adopt these as our start 
>> point.
>
> Does this mean the current inclination is to issue updates of the 
> current documents rather than trying to combine into a single "IMAP 
> synchronization extensions" doc?
>
> I personally feel the latter makes more sense from a protocol 
> implementor's standpoint, especially since the subtleties and 
> interplay between the two extensions could more easily be explained.  
> Although I understand this requires drafting of an entirely new 
> document rather than incremental tweaking of existing text.
As Dave said, our WG Charter doesn't restrict us in what we can do here. 
If people want a single document, my preferred way of doing that would be:
1) first post 2 separate drafts updating CONDSTORE and QRESYNC first (so 
that people can use wdiff to see what changed)
2) then produce a combined document with CONDSTORE inserted into QRESYNC 
(again, so that people can diff relevant parts)
3) start rearranging & rewriting text to make sure that CONDSTORE and 
QRESYNC bits are consistent with each other.

This is going to be more work, but I am happy to try if people see benefits.