IMAP4 Keyword Registry
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
( Lisa Dusseault ) Yes
( Cullen Jennings ) Yes
Jari Arkko No Objection
( Ron Bonica ) No Objection
( Ross Callon ) No Objection
( Ralph Droms ) No Objection
( Lars Eggert ) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2009-12-02 for -10)
Section 3., paragraph 21: > Registration of an IMAP keyword intended for common use (whether or > not they use the "$" prefix) requires Expert Review [RFC5226]. After > allowing for at least two weeks for community input on the designated > mailing list (as described above), the expert will determine the > appropriateness of the registration request and either approve or > disapprove the request with notice to the requestor, the mailing > list, and IANA. Any refusal must come with a clear explanation. Is list input & the required delay really necessary? Don't we trust the experts to do the right thing? Section 3., paragraph 22: > The IESG appoints one or more Expert Reviewer, one of which is > designated as the primary Expert Reviewer. IMAP keywords intended > for common use SHOULD be standardized in IETF Review [RFC5226] > documents. What does "primary" mean? Nowhere else in this document is described what sets this experts apart from the others. (Suggest to simply remove this.) Section 3.2., paragraph 1: > Once an IMAP keyword registration has been published by IANA, the > author may request a change to its definition. Who is the "author"? Do you mean the owner? Section 3.2., paragraph 4: > IMAP keyword registrations may not be deleted; keywords which are no > longer believed appropriate for use can be declared OBSOLETE by a > change to their "intended usage" field. I believe HISTORIC would be more correct (whenever we say "obsolete" we usually saw obsoleted by *what*).
( Pasi Eronen ) No Objection
( Adrian Farrel ) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2009-12-01 for -)
Section 3 > Keywords intended for common use SHOULD start with the "$" prefix. > (Note that this is a SHOULD because some of the commonly used IMAP > keywords in widespread use don't follow this convention.) As discussed, you could insist that all new keywords intended for common use MUST start with the "$" prefix as a definition of the registry. ======= Nits --- Through-out "IMAP Keywords" of "IMAP keywords" ? --- Section 2 "cross client interoperability" What have the clients to be cross about? Try "cross-client"