Referencing RFC 2088 (was: AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06)

Hi Jay, Naren, Alexey,

Although I did not mention all the working group participants by 
name, please comment if you have an opinion about this.

At 10:24 07-12-2015, Barry Leiba wrote:
>-- Section 4 --
>
>"Client can avoid use of LITERAL+ [RFC2088], when maximum upload size
>  supported by the IMAP server is unknown."
>
>What?
>Don't you mean "The client SHOULD avoid"?  I'd even use this as an
>opportunity to make it firmer, and say "The client MUST avoid".  No?
>If not, why not?
>
>And please don't say "LITERAL+"; please say "non-synchronizing
>literals".  (We should use capability strings only when we're talking
>about what's in the CAPABILITY response.)

draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06 references RFC 
2088.  Alexey is editing the second draft of the Working Group.  That 
draft proposes to replace RFC 2088 and obsolete it in a few months 
(if there is agreement to do that).

The alternatives are:

   (a) Keep the reference to RFC 2088

   (b) Change the reference to draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis

If draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis does not become an RFC, the 
reference can be changed back to RFC 2088.  The impact on 
draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension is that its publication as 
a RFC will be delayed until draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis is 
published as a RFC.

Which alternative do you prefer?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd) 

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