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

[Jayantheesh S B <[e-mail]>]

Thanks SM.

It's fine for me. If everybody is OK, I will update the proposed text. 

Regards,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: S Moonesamy [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 12:09 PM
To: Jayantheesh S B; Narendra Singh Bisht; Alexey Melnikov
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [imapext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-08: (with COMMENT)

Hi Jay, Alexey,

At 08:41 07-01-2016, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>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).

Yes.  I don't think that using normative language is appropriate in that sentence.

At 08:28 07-01-2016, Jayantheesh S B wrote:
>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.

I'll suggest the following text:

   An IMAP client implementing this extension should be able to parse both
   mailbox-specific and global APPENDLIMIT responses.


Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)