Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-extra-imap-list-myrights
1. This document is being requested as a Proposed Standard because it
extends an existing PROPOSED STANDARD (RFC5258).
The request type is indicated in the title page header.
This document defines an extension to IMAP LIST command that
allows the client to request the set of rights that the logged-in
user has been granted on mailboxes, along with other information
typically returned by the LIST command.
Working Group Summary
The EXTRA WG meeting in IETF 101 identified two items, which have been to be fixed.
During working group last call, a couple of minor issues were identified and fixed in the new version.
The WG has looked throught this document in detail.
The document is in very good shape and is ready to be published.
Some vendors have stated their intention to implement it. Some have stated that
they have no objection to advancement although they do not plan to implement it right now.
Document Shepherd - Jiankang Yao (EXTRA co-chair)
Responsible Area Director - Alexey Melnikov
3. The Document Shepherd has read the document through in detail and
think that it is ready to go.
4. For such a short document it has had many reviews and been discussed
in two meetings. Two experts have reviewed this draft in detail and agree that this draft is in good shape.
5. There is no review required for the document by other areas, it's
6. There are no concerns with this document that IESG should be aware of.
7. There have been no IPR disclosures for this spec.
8. There have been no IPR disclosures for this spec.
9. The WG consensus is very solid, while not everybody spoke, it was
clear that the entire group understood and agreed with the idea and
the method chosen.
10. There has been no discontent.
11. The ID nits tool shows the following:
== Unused Reference: 'RFC3501' is defined on line 215, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 0 comments (--).
12. This document doesn't define anything which needs formal review
outside the working group.
13. All references have been identified as either normative or
14. All normative references are published standards.
15. There are no downward normative references references.
16. This RFC does not change the status of any other RFCs.
17. The IANA considerations ask for the following two items to be added to the registry:
Registration of IMAP capability LIST-MYRIGHTS
Registration of LIST-EXTENDED option MYRIGHTS
18. None of the IANA registries mentioned require Expert Review.
19. The formal sections are simple enough that eyeball reading
was sufficient to validate them.