Skip to main content

IMAP4 Keyword Registry
draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-10

Yes

(Cullen Jennings)
(Lisa Dusseault)

No Objection

(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)

Recuse

(Alexey Melnikov)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2009-12-01) Unknown
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"
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

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

                            
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2009-12-02) Unknown
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*).
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Robert Sparks 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
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse () Unknown