Re: AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06 (Section 2)

On 10/12/2015 17:15, Naren wrote:
> Hi SM,
>
> We can rephrase that sentence to
>
> "IMAP server MAY advertise this CAPABILITY before or after user has 
> logged in.The client SHOULD

IMHO, this is not correct use of SHOULD. The client that doesn't support 
both is broken. I suggest you replace SHOULD with "needs to" or the like.

> be ready to handle this CAPABILITY irrespective of user authenticated 
> state"
>
> We do not see any implications in this being advertised before user 
> logged in.
> Can you elaborate more about your concern on this.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:32 AM, S Moonesamy <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Naren,
>     At 07:52 10-12-2015, Naren wrote:
>
>         Our MAY means
>         (a) The IMAP server can advertise this capability before the
>         user has logged in.
>         OR
>         (b) The IMAP server can advertise this capability after the
>         user has logged in.
>
>
>     Based on the AD review [1] and the short discussion about that
>     sentence in Section 2, my opinion is that the intent of the what
>     is written in the draft is not clear.  What are the implications
>     of (a) and (b)?  What if the IMAP server advertises that there is
>     a limit which applies to all mailboxes before the user has logged in?
>
>     Regards,
>     S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)
>
>     1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imapext/current/msg05633.html
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Thanks & Regards
> -Narendra
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> imapext mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext

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