Re: [lemonade] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-bis-02.txt

Dave Cridland wrote:

> On Wed Jun  7 13:01:31 2006, Zoltan.Ordogh@nokia.com wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> A few questions/comments:
>>  - Section 4.3, first paragraph. I saw some emails about 
>> including/not including Compression in CONVERT. What was the 
>> conclusion on this? Does the current bis reflect that agreement? OMA 
>> STI does not include parameters for compressing files.
>>  - Section 4.3, last paragraph. So, there will be a COMPRESS anyway?
>>  - Section 4.3 general. This section is confusing. Would it be 
>> possible to describe things from the compression level point of view 
>> saying this is low-level, that is application-level, and that is 
>> object-level compression. This is believed to be better for this, 
>> that is believed to be better for that. For low-level use this and 
>> that, for application-level use this and that, and for object-level 
>> use this and that. This is mandatory, while that is optional for the 
>> server. Clients to evaluate which is available and best used 
>> according to their capabilities and the current network conditions.
>
> Alexey has tidied this up, removing the inapplicable paragraphs.
>
>>  - Section 4.5. Normative statement missing - is it a MUST, SHOULD or 
>> MAY?
>
> It's a MUST, but expressed as a statement of fact for variety. (Note 
> that CATENATE is even more extreme, dispensing with RFC2119 entirely).
>
>>  - "required by [RFC3501]. As noted above, servers SHOULD support" 
>> that note is quite far above - could we say "Section 4.3"?
>
> Done.
>
>>  - Section 5: "STARTTLS | Required by IMAP [RFC3501]" Are we going to 
>> describe all dependencies? If not, remove, if yes, add all please.
>
> STARTTLS was historically not part of IMAP4rev1, it was mandated and 
> included into RFC3501. Originally, though it was distinct, defined in 
> RFC2595, and as such, I think it's a special case.

I agree.

>>  - Section 5: "LPROVISION, LSETPREF, LGETPREF | Section 4.4" these 
>> are not described in section 4.4.
>
> They're part of the notifications draft.

Actually, I removed them, as we are going to use METADATA instead.

>>  - Section 13, 1st bullet: double dot at the end of the paragraph.
>
Fixed.

>>  - Section 13, 3nd bullet: "Notifications (server to client)" -> 
>> "Server to client notifications",
>
Changed.

>> but: why the separation if they are discussed in the same draft anyway?
>
> Section 13 is intentionally somewhat rough notes, it will vanish. 
> (It's actually section 7.7, now).

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
lemonade@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade