Re: Review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-03

Dear SM,

Please find the response inline 

Regards,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: S Moonesamy [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 5:20 PM
To: Jayantheesh S B; Alexey Melnikov; [email protected]
Cc: Jayantheesh S B; Narendra Singh Bisht
Subject: Re: [imapext] Review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-03

Hi Jay,
At 15:13 07-10-2015, Jayantheesh S B wrote:
>Please find the response inline.


>"must be fast" is subjective.  I suggest rewriting the sentence without 
>RFC 2119 key words if we do not want to encourage debates about "fast". 
>:-)
>
>[Jay] Changed this sentence. Please refer the latest version of the document.

This is what you have in -04:

   "STATUS APPENDLIMIT should be fast and there ..."

Would you be okay with removing the "should" so that it does not sound like a recommendation?

[Jay]  - Please find the updated text below. 

"STATUS APPENDLIMIT is considered to be fast and there is no need to evaluate 
remaining quotas (if any) when returning APPENDLIMIT values. APPEND can
still fail due to ACL and quota related issues, even if the message
being appended is smaller than the APPENDLIMIT."

In Section 2:

   "In this case the client should get APPENDLIMIT value by issuing
    STATUS or LIST command."

Is the "should" a RFC 2119 recommendation?

[Jay] - Yes, this is a RFC 2119 recommendation. I will change to SHOULD in the next version.

Thanks for adding text to the Security Considerations Section.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 

_______________________________________________
imapext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext