Return-Path: X-Original-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7931A88C6 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:27:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F315o3ffKgjU for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:27:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C30381A88C3 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:27:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.227.81.145]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u22FR7Yn011302 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:27:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1456932440; x=1457018840; bh=++AFwtF+3xcKDnMeqB1SfJt8LoghvRe3IiHA+o321UQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=3WK0tZSI1kCafOvuSP08DAyb5eUBTLWEg4IaAQjd0J+WzWCnpJ1qKIR6W/0QNWOOY IfMeBan2S39KDALmp85LhF+y16qPNQ9R/LnK9RhpItbsKqqBku8qCpUhhaLUnej2PL V1dlToxUJX5jYxrUvovzcZh/xGUKpB4EOBcL0JmI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1456932440; x=1457018840; i=@elandsys.com; bh=++AFwtF+3xcKDnMeqB1SfJt8LoghvRe3IiHA+o321UQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=upCYI4rIC1jxQ7vOssdeL/VuUw6pQqT99YB1mu75NE+zqT7rvUCIcfPaNxqbMK1L0 NLq/Zx7nwfe3BQCKEjqsw+bgGvTdOXGU1ksUyxTlw12mxkzYUdq043GApkFCVAYHr2 mW91hT838gAbQq/fxCe2IgvVNrxB1vSCOnwtVERM= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20160302065932.0e6d77c8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 07:25:22 -0800 To: Alexey Melnikov , imapext@ietf.org From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <56D6F347.6010007@isode.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20160301215244.0d624dc0@elandnews.com> <56D6F347.6010007@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [imapext] Review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-03 X-BeenThere: imapext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IMAP extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:27:23 -0000 Hi Alexey, At 06:05 02-03-2016, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >I addressed all of the above by adding a short Introduction section >(which is almost identical to the Abstract). Then I moved the >"Requirements Notation" section after it, before the "Specification" section. draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-03 is a significant improvement over -02. >> "It then MAY proceed as described in Section 3." >> >>Why is there is a RFC 2119 "MAY"? >Because an implementation can eat the literal or send BYE response >(as per section 3), or do something else. I would be Ok with >changing MAY to SHOULD. What I meant was that you could use a "may" (It may then proceed ...). Regards, S. Moonesamy