Re: [Last-Call] [Extra] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-partial-02

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Dear Yingzhen Qu,

On 24/11/2022 11:51, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Dear Yingzhen Qu,
>
> Thank you for your review!
>
> My answers are below:
>
> On 21/11/2022 20:02, Yingzhen Qu via Datatracker wrote:
>> Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
>> Review result: Has Nits
>>
>> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational 
>> directorate's ongoing
>> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. 
>> These comments
>> were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of 
>> the IETF
>> drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included 
>> in AD
>> reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should 
>> treat
>> these comments just like any other last call comments.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-extra-imap-partial-02
>> Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
>> Review Date: 2022-11-20
>>
>> Summary:
>> This document extends PARTIAL SEARCH return option defined in RFC 5267.
>> The document is ready, but the following nits should be considered
>> before publication.
>>
>> General: this documents still has a normative reference to RFC 3501, 
>> which
>> was obsoleted by RFC 9051. RFC 3501 is referenced multiple times in the
>> draft.
>>
>> Nits (line numbers are from idnits):
>>
>> 90   This document defines an extension to the Internet Message Access
>> 91   Protocol [RFC3501] for performing incremental searches and fetches.
>>
>> major: RFC 9051 should be referenced here instead of RFC 3501.
> Ok, I will review this. The intend was to reference both RFC 3501 and 
> RFC 9051.
I checked and I think the following sentence is quite clear on that. So 
I haven't done any change.
>> 101   This document extends PARTIAL SEARCH return option originally
>>
>> nits: should it be "PARTIAL SEARCH" (used 4 times) or "PARTIAL search"
>> (used 2 times)?
> Well spotted. It should be "PARTIAL SEARCH" in all cases.
>> 245 +------------------------------+---------------------+
>> 246              |    SAVE PARTIAL COUNT [m]    |  all found messages |
>> 247 +------------------------------+---------------------+
>>
>> 249                                     Table 1
>>
>> 251       where '[m]' means optional "MIN" and/or "MAX"
>>
>> Question: If the SAVE + PARTIAL result options are combined with COUNT,
>> MIN and MAX, what the result would be? The text above the table didn't
>> cover this case.
>
> This is covered by the last line of the table, as it also applies when 
> both MIN and MAX are present, as per the comment under the table.
I tried to clarify that.