IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [imapext] Review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-03

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 02 March 2016 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
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 CCDAF1A88D4 for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:29:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.007
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 2HpribdAcG6e for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:29:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from statler.isode.com (Statler.isode.com [62.232.206.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C25781A88C6 for <imapext@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:29:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1456932559; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=IJAsKNi/8VcWUNCAerejrJsPw2Gc/0Y7aPMNjgGK8Ko=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=uiWDldPYb7MKVxwsaxxgpFJPyY0PWa2oxyJxVeWmrx9+zSgA5De3cUJT5YWV+0A5aN9+dX ZbxA/V2wYoPNI758R9VtZLcn7/mwY5b/tlIVuPsLY7zN67JlJTurQNnPyrQsImYbfyNVEa Cul4w272xeyjBCYL5E3yTZ4hu/IlUzE=;
Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <VtcGzgBBeFkN@statler.isode.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:29:18 +0000
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, imapext@ietf.org
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20160301215244.0d624dc0@elandnews.com> <56D6F347.6010007@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20160302065932.0e6d77c8@elandnews.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <56D706CD.3040401@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:29:17 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20160302065932.0e6d77c8@elandnews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/jjOSda5faZ9wN-mTh_-GOD7BznU>
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 <imapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/imapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:imapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:29:21 -0000

Hi SM,

On 02/03/2016 15:25, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
> At 06:05 02-03-2016, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
  [snip]
>>>   "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 ...).

IMHO, it is an implementation choice, so use of MAY is appropriate.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email