IMAP4 Keyword Registry
RFC 5788

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)
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. 



"IMAP Keywords" of "IMAP keywords" ?


Section 2

"cross client interoperability" 
What have the clients to be cross about?
Try "cross-client"

( Russ Housley ) No Objection

( Tim Polk ) No Objection

( Dan Romascanu ) No Objection

( Robert Sparks ) No Objection

( Magnus Westerlund ) No Objection

( Alexey Melnikov ) Recuse