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

Alexey,

Ok, We will remove the normative language here.

Regards,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:alexey.melnikov@isode.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 11:41 AM
To: Jayantheesh S B; S Moonesamy; Narendra Singh Bisht
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)

On 07/01/2016 16:28, Jayantheesh S B wrote:
> Dear SM,
>
> IMAP client implementing this extension, should be capable to parse both Mailbox-specific and Global APPENDLIMIT response.
>
> IMAP client ignoring one format may result in non-compliance to this extension. To stress that point we have added RFC 2119 "SHOULD" in that sentence.
SHOULD implies that it is possible for the client not to parse one of the variants in some circumstances. I think not using normative language is better here (or switch to MUST).
> Regards,
> Jay
> -----Original Message-----
> From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+ietf@elandsys.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 11:15 AM
> To: Jayantheesh S B; Narendra Singh Bisht
> 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 Jay,
> At 08:04 07-01-2016, Jayantheesh S B wrote:
>> Yes, both text refers to the same examples in Section 2.
> Thanks for confirming that.
>
> Why is there a RFC 2119 "SHOULD" in the first sentence of the last paragraph of Section 2?
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> _______________________________________________
> imapext mailing list
> imapext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext