Last Call Review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-messagelimit-08
review-ietf-extra-imap-messagelimit-08-genart-lc-housley-2024-03-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-messagelimit
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2024-03-25
Requested 2024-03-04
Authors Alexey Melnikov , ArunPrakash Achuthan , Vikram Nagulakonda , Luis Alves
I-D last updated 2024-03-08
Completed reviews Artart Last Call review of -08 by Barry Leiba (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Joel Jaeggli (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Kathleen Moriarty (diff)
Artart Telechat review of -10 by Barry Leiba
Assignment Reviewer Russ Housley
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-extra-imap-messagelimit by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/FYjlWM4pSm5ER06-QdbtWAakF9g
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready
Completed 2024-03-08
review-ietf-extra-imap-messagelimit-08-genart-lc-housley-2024-03-08-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-extra-imap-messagelimit-08
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2024-03-08
IETF LC End Date: 2024-03-25
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready


Major Concerns:

None


Minor Concerns:

This document contains the disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work.  Is this
because it builds upon the capability defined in RFC 3501?  If so, then
you can ignore this concern.  If it is something else, then I would like
to see a rationale in the document, even if it is put in a place that
will not be part of the final RFC.


Nits:

IDnits reports:

  ** There are 13 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
     one being 23 characters in excess of 72.

At lease one of these long lines was a problem for me as a reader.
I suspect that all of the long lines are in the C:/S: examples.

I do not see the point of an Index at the back of the document that only
has one entry.