IMAP4 Extension for Named Searches (Filters)
RFC 5466

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Chris Newman) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

Comment (2008-12-09 for -)
No email
send info
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.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(David Ward) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection