Re: Expliciut IANA registartion of capability

[Arnt Gulbrandsen <[e-mail]>]

Cyrus Daboo writes:
> Hi folks,
> The GENART review of annotate brought it to my attention that there 
> was no explicit registration of the ANNOTATE-EXPERIMENT-1 capability. 
> There is text in the body that says the capability string is 
> ANNOTATE-EXPERIMENT-1.
>
> I think it makes sense to require all imap extension drafts to 
> explicitly state the capability registration in their IANA 
> Considerations section.
>
> Looking at current drafts, the following do that:
>
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/imapext/draft-ietf-imapext-sort/>
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gulbrandsen-imap-enable-00.txt>
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gulbrandsen-imap-inthread-00.txt>
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gulbrandsen-imap-nostore-00.txt>
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gulbrandsen-imap-notify-01.txt>
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-melnikov-imapext-filters-00.txt>
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-melnikov-imapext-multimailbox-search-01.txt>

I'm a good boy ;)

FWIW, I also added a suitable considerations section in SASL-IR, which i 
took over from Rob and submitted earlier today. Review, please. I'll 
ask on the SASL list for review when the draft comes out, and perhaps 
Lisa will issue an IETF LC just before Christmas, to expire just after 
Christmas.

> The following do not:
>
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/imapext/draft-ietf-imapext-annotate/>
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/imapext/draft-ietf-imapext-list-extensions/>
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cridland-imap-context-00.txt>
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-melnikov-imap-postaddress-05.txt>
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-10.txt>
>
> Also, 
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-melnikov-lemonade-imap-events-00.txt> 
> does not define any new capability name, but it does update the 
> behavior of IDLE, so I would like to see it listed in the registry as 
> updating IDLE (i.e. both it and RFC2177 listed).

In that case it should also say "Updates RFC 2177".

Arnt