Skip to main content

IMAP4 Extensions for Quick Mailbox Resynchronization
RFC 5162

Yes

(Chris Newman)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)

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

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-10-18)
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

No Objection (2007-10-17)
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.