Subject: [EAI] Boing! IMAP

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:46:31 -0500

Barry, Pete,

As announced on Friday (both in the meeting and on-list), the
clock just ran out on possible WG objections to the new material
in draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-11 (the clock on other material ran
out long ago).

We still will insert minor editorial clarifications from Alexey,
but please do whatever you have to do to get this document
cleared and approved.

regards,
   john

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:19:56 -0500

> in draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-11 (the clock on other material ran

...and there was much rejoicing!

> but please do whatever you have to do to get this document

Indeed.
I suggest that the chairs give Alexey a deadline on the edits he
wants, and that John, who has the current XML source, handle that and
post an updated draft when they're done.  When that happens, I'll
press the appropriate buttons forthwith.

Barry

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:02:46 -0500

--On Monday, 12 November, 2012 19:19 -0500 Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
>> We still will insert minor editorial clarifications from
>> Alexey, but please do whatever you have to do to get this
>> document cleared and approved.
> 
> Indeed.
> I suggest that the chairs give Alexey a deadline on the edits
> he wants, and that John, who has the current XML source,
> handle that and post an updated draft when they're done.  When
> that happens, I'll press the appropriate buttons forthwith.

Wfm.

Proposal:  Said deadline is hereby set at 2359 UT on Thursday
for either that text or posting to this list of a a really good
reason why more time is needed along with a proposed alternate
target date.

Remember that, if these are really small suggestions of a purely
editorial nature, they could be made at AUTH48 (or intermediate
suggestions to the RFC Editor) rather than than putting things
on hold now.

    best,
     john

---

From: "Jiankang YAO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:18:22 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>; "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [EAI] Boing! IMAP

> suggestions to the RFC Editor) rather than than putting things

My sense from the Atlanta meeting  is that everything is ok before ADs push to approve it.

Jiankang Yao

>    best,
>     john
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:58:00 -0500

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012, John C Klensin wrote:

> <[email-masked] <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> >...

Sorry for the delay.

6. UTF8=ONLY Capability
The "UTF8=ONLY" capability indicates that the server supports
"UTF8=ACCEPT" (see Section 4), and also that it requires support for
UTF-8 from clients. That means that it will send UTF-8 in quoted

Maybe this is a bit subtle, but I would prefer inserting "In particular,
this means ...". The reason for this is that the text doesn't list all
things that the server can do differently when advertising this capability,
or at least it doesn't spell out all aspects of server behaviour that might
be affected, so I would like to clarify that.

strings, and it will not accept the older international mailbox name
convention (modified UTF-7).

Another thing I was thinking about is inserting an informative reference
for the CANNOT response code. But this probably doesn't make a practical
difference.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:31:27 -0500

--On Thursday, November 15, 2012 18:58 -0500 Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
>> Remember that, if these are really small suggestions of a
>> purely editorial nature, they could be made at AUTH48 (or
>> intermediate suggestions to the RFC Editor) rather than than
>> putting things on hold now.
>> 
> 
> Sorry for the delay.
> 
> 6. UTF8=ONLY Capability
> "UTF8=ACCEPT" (see Section 4), and also that it requires
> support for UTF-8 from clients. That means that it will send
> UTF-8 in quoted
> 
> Maybe this is a bit subtle, but I would prefer inserting "In
> particular, this means ...". The reason for this is that the
> text doesn't list all things that the server can do
> differently when advertising this capability, or at least it
> doesn't spell out all aspects of server behaviour that might
> strings, and it will not accept the older international
> mailbox name convention (modified UTF-7).

I believe this change is editorial and, at worst, harmless.  See
below.
 
> Another thing I was thinking about is inserting an informative
> reference for the CANNOT response code. But this probably
> doesn't make a practical difference.

Agreed so, unless someone feels _really_ strongly about it, we
won't tamper further for the document.  

So, I'll wait a short time but, unless someone posts an
objection that demonstrates why the above change is both
substantive and problematic, I will, as Barry suggested, spin up
a new copy of the draft tomorrow and get it posted.

best,
   john