IMAP4 Extension for Named Searches (Filters)
RFC 5466
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 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) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection
Carl Wallace noted some editorial errors in his secdir review (posted Dec. 8). In particular, the equivalency statement for the example search command in section 3.1 appears to be missing an OR. Perhaps the following edit is needed? OLD: C: a SEARCH UID 300:900 SMALLER 5000 FROM "boss@example.com" SINCE "3-Dec-2002" NEW: C: a SEARCH UID 300:900 OR SMALLER 5000 FROM "boss@example.com" SINCE "3-Dec-2002" Other comments from Carl's review: In section 2, "if both filter type with the same exist" should be "if both filter types with the same name exist". In the same sentence, "is going to use" should probably be "MUST use". Should the server check the syntax of the filter before storing? The fourth paragraph of section 3.2 gives the impression that any "non NIL value" may be stored.