Re: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-08: (with COMMENT)
S Moonesamy <[email protected]> Thu, 07 Jan 2016 09:09:06 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.imapext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Jay, Alexey, At 08:41 07-01-2016, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >SHOULD implies that it is possible for the client not to parse one >of the variants in some circumstances. I think not using normative >language is better here (or switch to MUST). Yes. I don't think that using normative language is appropriate in that sentence. At 08:28 07-01-2016, Jayantheesh S B wrote: >IMAP client implementing this extension, should be capable to parse >both Mailbox-specific and Global APPENDLIMIT response. > >IMAP client ignoring one format may result in non-compliance to this >extension. To stress that point we have added RFC 2119 "SHOULD" in >that sentence. I'll suggest the following text: An IMAP client implementing this extension should be able to parse both mailbox-specific and global APPENDLIMIT responses. Regards, S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd) _______________________________________________ imapext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext