Re: AD review draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06

Hi Stu,
At 09:37 17-12-2015, Stu Brandt wrote:
>Since RFC 3501 section 4.5 states...
>
>    The special form "NIL" represents the non-existence of a particular
>    data item that is represented as a string or parenthesized list, as
>    distinct from the empty string "" or the empty parenthesized list ().
>
>
>...does the introduction of nil as an alternative to number now 
>imply that an update to this text is necessary?

Thanks for flagging this.

I don't think so as it is ABNF in 
draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension which will be 
followed.  The following persons are in favor of using "NIL" [1][2][3][4]:

   Barry Leiba (Area Director)
   Bron Gondwana
   Adrien de Croy
   Alexey Melnikov

I suggest going ahead with that.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imapext/current/msg05682.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imapext/current/msg05681.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imapext/current/msg05683.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imapext/current/msg05684.html 

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