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

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.

>  - Section 5: "LPROVISION, LSETPREF, LGETPREF | Section 4.4" these 
> are not described in section 4.4.

They're part of the notifications draft.

>  - Section 13, 1st bullet: double dot at the end of the paragraph.
>  - Section 13, 3nd bullet: "Notifications (server to client)" -> 
> "Server to client notifications", 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).

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@jabber.org
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

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