Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-04
review-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-04-artart-lc-hollenbeck-2024-02-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2024-02-15
Requested 2024-02-01
Authors Marco Bettini
I-D last updated 2024-02-08
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Valery Smyslov (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -04 by Scott Hollenbeck (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Artart Telechat review of -05 by Scott Hollenbeck (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Scott Hollenbeck
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/6Y5tzvGYokTk0BVKRU7EPVawXPo
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 06)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2024-02-08
review-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-04-artart-lc-hollenbeck-2024-02-08-00
This document defines a new IMAP untagged response code, "INPROGRESS", that
provides structured numeric progress status indication for long-running
commands. I found the document to be clear and easy to understand. The needed
IANA instructions are included and clear.

My only suggestion would be to describe expected behavior in cases where a BCP
14 directive is not met. For example, the text says that "GOAL: a number
indicating the total number of items to be processed.  The number MUST be
positive and it SHOULD NOT change between successive notifications for the same
command (i.e. for the same cmd-tag)." What should be done if a GOAL value is
negative, or of it does change between successive notifications for the same
command? It might take no more than a single sentence somewhere to describe the
action to be taken when one of these BCP 14 directives is violated.