Re: So, do we meet?

[Chris Newman <[e-mail]>]

--On Friday, February 23, 2001 13:01 -0800 Mark Crispin 
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>> draft-crispin-imapv-14.txt
>>   Base-spec bug fixes. Last call 4-Jan-2001. Presumably this can now move
>> forward, or have there been corrections that require it to be re-issued?
>
> I wish that I knew the answer to this, although this isn't an IMAPEXT
> issue. Every time we talk about putting it forward, some specious issue
> comes up that kicks it back.

I'd prefer to see the vagueness of the 8-bit issue and 822 compliance 
clarified, particularly if we're planning to move in the direction of UTF-8 
headers in the future.  But I could live with deferring that clarification 
to the draft standard revision since this is just a recycle at proposed 
status.  Also, since it's an individual submission Mark can just ask for a 
4-week last call if he thinks it's ready.

>> draft-crispin-imap-multiappend-03.txt
>>   Last call 4-Jan-2001. Status?
>
> Can we clear this from the table by unanimous consent to move it forward,
> on the grounds that there are multiple client/server implementations and
> no stated reasons for not doing so?

I just read it.  Looks ready to move to me.  Mark, why don't you just send 
email to the ADs and [e-mail] asking for a 4-week last call?

>> draft-ietf-imapext-sort-06.txt
>> draft-ietf-imapext-thread-06.txt
>> draft-ietf-imapext-view-00.txt
>>   There are now multiple client/server implementations of sort and thread
>> and more people looking to add these to their implementations. Its
>> therefore important we get some kind of consensus on these moving
>> forward. Also, I'm still unsure as to what other people really want from
>> VIEW. There's hasn't been much feedback after my last post.
>
> The lack of feedback strongly suggests to me that we should move forward
> on SORT and THREAD, and let VIEW languish until/unless there is sufficient
> interest.

I'm very uncomfortable moving SORT and THREAD forward without a facility to 
provide scalability on the basis of mailbox size (e.g., windowing).  If the 
rest of the WG wants to move them forward, I won't block rough concensus 
but I will express my concerns to the IESG during last call.

>> draft-ietf-imapext-acl-01.txt
>>   Status?

I suggest the chair nag the document editor directly to get a revision out.

		- Chris