Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search-02

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Tina, and thanks for the review.

> The two numbered bullets in page 5 (section 2.2) and the first and
> third bullets in page 6 (Section 2.2) should use RFC2119 language.

I very much disagree; I think it's quite fine as it is, and says
exactly what it needs to.  Is the language unclear?

>> his extension allows a client to search multiple mailboxes
>>    with one command, limiting round trips delay
>
> Maybe something like "transaction delay" or something along
> those lines would be better?

No, the Introduction section is clear that we want to talk about round
trips.  What you're quoting is from the Abstract.  Lots of App-layer
stuff talks about round trips.  But, yes, "round trips delay" is
awkward.  I think this might work better:

OLD
   This extension allows a client to search multiple mailboxes
   with one command, limiting round trips delay, and not requiring
   disruption of the currently selected mailbox.
NEW
   This extension allows a client to search multiple mailboxes
   with one command, limiting the delays caused by many round
   trips, and not requiring disruption of the currently selected
   mailbox.
END

>>    There is
>>    now implementation experience, giving confidence in the protocol, so
>>    this document puts the extension on the Standards Track, with some
>>    minor updates that were informed by the implementation experience.
>
> You may want to replace "informed" with "motivated".

I very much don't.  "Informed" is actually the right word.  This odd
use of "motivate" has become popular in the tech world in recent
years, but it's not correct English usage, and I've always found it
icky.[1]

Barry


[1] "Icky" is, of course, perfectly correct English....