IMAP Support for UTF-8
RFC 5738
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
Why is this going for Experimental instead of PS? Section 3.1., paragraph 7: > would be the same as if other syntacticly valid but semantically Nit: s/syntacticly/syntactically/ Section 3.4., paragraph 1: > "LIST-EXTENEDED" [RFC5258] capability, the server MUST support the Nit: s/"LIST-EXTENEDED"/"LIST-EXTENDED"/
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes
David Black suggested in GenArt review: While not strictly a security consideration, it would be useful for section 11 to point out the potential for user confusion caused by SEARCH command match strings that have different UTF-8 representations but display identically or similarly (strings that look like they should match don't). Barry Leiba suggested: The UTF8=ONLY capability implies the UTF8 base capability, the UTF8=ALL capability and the UTF8=APPEND capability. A server which advertises UTF8=ONLY need not advertise the three implicit capabilities. Oy. This makes parsing the capability string complicated, and should be earlier in the document. It'd be good to make this clear at the beginning, when the UTF8 capability is first mentioned.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was No Record, No Objection) No Objection
Nit at the level of an observation: Would be bice if the first section in the document was the Introduction, and if the Introduction was a little less terse.
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
Appendix B (Acknowledgments) still says TBD.
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection