Internet Message Access Protocol Internationalization
draft-ietf-imapext-i18n-15
Yes
(Lisa Dusseault)
No Objection
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jon Peterson)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Sam Hartman)
(Tim Polk)
Recuse
(Chris Newman)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-03-05)
Unknown
> Clients are urged to > issue LANGUAGE before authentication, since some servers send > valuable user information as part of authentication (e.g. "password > is correct, but expired"). Clients SHOULD issue?
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-03-06)
Unknown
The LANGUAGE response is ambiguous for the corner case where the LANGUAGE extension
is supported but only the i-default langauge is supported. Specifically, Section 3.3 states:
A LANGUAGE response with a list containing a single language tag
indicates that the server is now using that language. A LANGUAGE
response with a list containing multiple language tags indicates the
server is communicating a list of available languages to the client,
and no change in the active language has been made.
However, for the corner case the server's list of langauges is just i-default.
Adding a requirements that "IMAP servers that support this extension MUST
support at least one langauge in addition to i-default" would correct this by
avoiding the corner case. (Just an observation, I'm not set on any particular
solution.)
Is I18NLEVEL=1 defined in another specification? The introductory text (Section2, final
paragraph) implies that only I18NLEVEL=2 is specified here, but section 4 includes
definitions for I18NLEVEL= 1 and 2.
Chris Newman Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
()
Unknown