Re: AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-03

> On 5 Mar 2016, at 16:58, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Barry,
> 
> On 5 Mar 2016, at 16:19, Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>>>> In bullet 1:
>>>> 
>>>>     (The server is allowed to send the tagged BAD/NO response before
>>>>     reading the whole non-synchronizing literal.)
>>>> 
>>>> Substantive: Shouldn't that be "the server is not allowed" (missing "not")?
>>> 
>>> No, the sentence is correct as written. Some servers send BAD right after
>>> observing the non-synchronising literal prefix and that is Ok.
>> 
>> Hm, but then I think the sentence is meaningless.  The server still
>> has to read and discard the literal, so whether it sends the BAD
>> before or after it does that hardly matters.  What are you really
>> trying to say with that parenthetical that's useful?
> 
> This is a valuable implementation advice.

This also potentially affects how client implementations are coded.

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