Re: OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-08
S Moonesamy <[email protected]> Tue, 05 Jan 2016 14:33:16 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.imapext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Sarah, At 10:58 04-01-2016, Sarah Banks wrote: >The document is ready with a minor nit/comment. Thanks for the review. >This draft discusses an extension to IMAP, where a server can use >APPENDLIMIT to communicate to the client the maximum mail upload >size, via several commands (status, list, capability). The document >cites a particularly useful use case, of mobile devices and resource >contention. I found the document fairly well written, and I have a >single comment: > >Section 3.1 - is the should in "should issue a STATUS >command" normative? It reads as if it could be... The "should" in the above is not normative. The usage of a RFC 2119 "SHOULD" in the sentence would be incorrect as there isn't any other way to get the desired Section 3.1 "STATUS response". >Authors, thanks for making me research "hone in" versus "home in" >(ala section 6). :) I'll credit Barry for that. :-) Regards, S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd) _______________________________________________ imapext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext