IMAP4 Extensions for Quick Mailbox Resynchronization
RFC 5162
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) Yes
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection
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 steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
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.