Internet Message Access Protocol - ANNOTATE Extension
RFC 5257

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.

(Lisa Dusseault) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2006-11-15)
No email
send info
From Gen-ART review by Robert Sparks.

1: Has there been any explicit discussion about what a  future transition from experimental to PS would look like? If there is uptake of the extension using ANNOTATE-EXPERIMENT-1 and  we later want to deploy this as ANNOTATE, its clear what the path is if everything worked, but if experience showed that some  component or semantic needed to change in a non-backward compatible way, is it an expectation/requirement that mailboxes with  EXPERIMENT-1 annotations be preservable?

2: The last sentence of section 4.5 speaks of  "completely bypassing the base IMAP flag/keyword behavior". To me this implies that the client can forget the base mechanisms  exist and ignore/not use them. I don't think that was the intent of the sentence (I'm guessing it means "instead of relying on  the base behavior" or "instead of being limited to the base behavior"?)

3: Section 4.2.2 confused me on first read. I wonder if  the second paragraph is vestigal and now out of place (the idea is captured more clearly in 4.3). A sentence noting that  the definition blocks here  are the attribute names defined in this draft would also help avoid the confusion I ran into.

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection