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

["Alissa Cooper" <[e-mail]>]

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's unusual to see author names without first initials in the document
header. Not sure if that was intentional but seems like it should be
fixed (assuming the authors have both first names and surnames).

= Section 2 =

"In this case the client SHOULD get an APPENDLIMIT value by issuing a
   STATUS or LIST command.

   An IMAP client SHOULD be able to parse both formats.  By looking at
   the upload size advertised by the IMAP server, a client MUST NOT try
   to APPEND mail more than the advertised limit."

The first and last normative requirements here seem too strict
considering that this extension basically allows an optimization. That
is, if a client decides not to find out the append limit for a particular
mailbox using STATUS or LIST, that doesn't seem to create any particular
problem. Likewise, it seems better for a client to avoid sending an
attachment larger than a known limit, but doing so doesn't seem so
problematic as to warrant a MUST NOT.