IMAP4 Extension for Named Searches (Filters)
RFC 5466
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)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert
No Objection
Chris Newman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-12-09)
Unknown
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.