Re: Review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-03

Hi Alexey,
At 06:05 02-03-2016, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>I addressed all of the above by adding a short Introduction section 
>(which is almost identical to the Abstract). Then I moved the 
>"Requirements Notation" section after it, before the "Specification" section.

draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-03 is a significant improvement over -02.

>>   "It then MAY proceed as described in Section 3."
>>
>>Why is there is a RFC 2119 "MAY"?
>Because an implementation can eat the literal or send BYE response 
>(as per section 3), or do something else. I would be Ok with 
>changing MAY to SHOULD.

What I meant was that you could use a "may" (It may then proceed ...).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 

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