Skip to main content

IMAP4 Extensions for Quick Mailbox Resynchronization
draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-client-06

Yes

(Chris Newman)

No Objection

(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Chris Newman 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

                            
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2007-10-18) Unknown
I did not completely review the interactions when multiple clients are
manipulating a mailbox at the same time.  It looks complicated.  I'm
assuming that it has been thoroughly checked; if that is true, this
spec looks good.
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2007-10-17) Unknown
As a general rule, I am comfortable with security considerations by reference.  No
one should have to cut and paste the material out of an RFC you already reference.
However, I do believe it is unfair to readers to provide iterative referrals.

The Security Considerations section in this document is basically two pointers to the
security considerations in [CONDSTORE] and [RFC3501].  [CONDSTORE] (now RFC 4551)
is mentioned twice, so I really expected to find some content in the Security Considerations
section.  However, [CONDSTORE]'s Security Considerations section is only two sentences,
and one is a pointer to the security considerations in [RFC3501].

It might be better to replicate the content of CONDSTORE's security considerations
section in this document.