Re: [imapext] AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 08 December 2015 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.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 C7FA21B2E4B; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 06:11:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 d-G5gV1CpSX3; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 06:11:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x233.google.com (mail-ig0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FC7F1B2E72; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 06:10:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by igvg19 with SMTP id g19so101995554igv.1; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 06:10:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=HjYDD9UDwe66o9+Zo8xODCduVBqIbSkK9m6q5IBTyyo=; b=Fixe4xBa8wW12DYXi3qEa/tG+HDiKTN0v1xUrjWBKjigH/WqS53ITkQSpoyLIWNuGE d1xmK2KtVbeNGkGEXw26IUnOzmJGRmkrGXmJKl9/Aw1eBmWw4753eDKsyeXEJzM22R79 /JL58zMJQckvKKYMbJbWOPkxk9eahVcxLTO8gs/CAdwqU3kYjlsyZJybYOdVmf6PGRQO 0iczRJY5Spq6DcduU4OKh2I4q7E031VtMWuWGuKuHgn89dTYA2y8MFqWSO1WonpZs6S5 +p8yEIHXV4s1hI4u9/RVwet+/znpYgr8g4Qm3p8ZkcC1eFIDYOSAcElkwFhwkBVlV+Tc LCdA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.90.180 with SMTP id bx20mr4403535igb.9.1449583844266; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 06:10:44 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.156.67 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 06:10:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJLE_6+vbeB-SeMk1VHDAtq2VvS9yKe9dhQ2LTzr4y=oTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALaySJLE_6+vbeB-SeMk1VHDAtq2VvS9yKe9dhQ2LTzr4y=oTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 09:10:44 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: t4KQHun32qaEKNv1A2tER7xzc58
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVCfBfEsH4m7Jxm=tSeqqAuqaf31q3ic03Ffkooz7g22aw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/s3OUAnRsgQb-2nQvgE2gBF5oOzc>
Cc: "imapext@ietf.org" <imapext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [imapext] AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06
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: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 14:11:34 -0000

One thing I'd like to follow up on:

> Overall, this document could use a going-over for proper English --
> use of articles, punctuation, that sort of thing.  The RFC Editor will
> do that, of course, but it'd be good for someone from the working
> group to do it, to make sure that the meaning remains correct.
> There's a lot of editing needed here.

On thinking about this more and talking it over with SM...
There are two important reasons we might ask a native English speaker
to go over a document for this:
1. If the English usage is sufficiently unclear that we're concerned
that it couldn't get properly reviewed.  This is NOT the case with
this document.
2. If the editing would be sufficiently extensive that we're concerned
that when the RFC Editor makes the changes, subtle changes to the
meaning might happen, and they might go unnoticed.  This is what I'm
concerned about.

Given that (1) is not a concern, we think we can let this point go,
and just make sure we re-review carefully during the AUTH48 stage
(after the RFC Editor has done their work).  I'm sure the authors will
do that, and SM and I will also.  Alexey has also volunteered to check
it during AUTH48 (thanks, Alexey).  I think that's a good set of
reviewers, and I think we'll be OK.

Barry