Re: So, do we meet?

[Mark Crispin <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:17:12 -0500, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> My vote is yes. Maybe we only need a one hour session rather than two?

Is it worth meeting if it's only a one-hour session?  Specifically, what
business do we need to do face-to-face (obviously it isn't much if only an
hour is needed), and does it need to be attended to at this IETF or can it be
deferred to the next one?

> 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.

> 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?

> 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.

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

I never was contacted.  My proposed solution leverages on the LIST extensions
work.