Synchronization Operations for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients
RFC 4549

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

(Ted Hardie) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2004-12-16)
No email
send info
Reviewed by John Loughney, Gen-ART. Editing pass suggested.

His review:

Summary: The document is ready, there are some small issues to clarify or
clean-up.  I'd suggest an editorial pass on the document before submitting,
but I don't think a DISCUSS is in order.  

In general, the document is readable, but a bit converstation, so a tightening
up of the language would make sense.  Other issues are listed below.

Issues:

1) Draft header says:
 IMAPEXT Working Group                                        A. Melnikov
 Internet Draft: IMAP4 Disconnected Access                         Editor
 Document: draft-melnikov-imap-disc-06.txt                   October 2004

But its an individual submission, so I think the IMAPEXT Working Group tag
should be removed.

2) Editorial comments with comments/questions marked by << and >> should be 
   removed.

3) Missing IANA considerations section

Nits:
1) ToC would be nice.

2) The following text is too conversational, I suggest improving it.

   Let's call an IMAP command idempotent, if the result of executing the
   command twice sequentially is the same as the result of executing the
   command just once.

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

Comment (2004-12-15)
No email
send info
The text in section 1.1 describing the editorial comment convention (Editorial comments/questions or missing paragraphs are marked in the text with << and >>.) and the question in section 5 (<<Is the example below is generic enough to be moved elsewhere?>>) should be removed.

The definition of idempotency in section 1.1 could also be improved.

"Let's call an IMAP command idempotent, if the result of executing the command twice sequentially is the same as the result of executing the command just once."

sounds pretty wishy-washy.  This could be used instead:

"An IMAP command is idempotent if the effect of executing the command more than once sequentially is the same as the result of executing the command just once."

I've changed "result" to "effect" because it's possible for an idempotent operation to return a different response if it's executed multiple times.  What's important is the effect of the operation.

Missing IANA Considerations.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2004-12-16)
No email
send info
  Need to use "example.com" instead of "Blurdybloop.COM."

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

Comment (2004-12-16)
No email
send info
$ idnits draft-melnikov-imap-disc-06.txt
idnits 1.57

draft-melnikov-imap-disc-06.txt:

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html :

  * The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.
    Checking conformance with RFC 3667/3668 boilerplate...
    the boilerplate looks good.
  * The document is more than 15 pages and seems to lack a Table of Contents.
  * There are 319 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 23
    characters in excess of 72.


Further I notice examples (in sects 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.2.5 for example) 
that do not follow the rules/guidelines for example domain names.
There are other places with same problem.