[apps-discuss] APPSDIR revie of draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-03

Glenn Parsons <glenn.parsons@ericsson.com> Sun, 06 May 2012 17:59 UTC

From: Glenn Parsons <glenn.parsons@ericsson.com>
To: "draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-03.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-03.all@tools.ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 13:58:50 -0400
Thread-Topic: APPSDIR revie of draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-03
Thread-Index: Ac0rseQf/GE4sMyvS9eEskEF9rXObA==
Message-ID: <D9DBDA6E6E3A9F438D9F76F0AF9D7AE34B295FF4C2@EUSAACMS0714.eamcs.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D9DBDA6E6E3A9F438D9F76F0AF9D7AE34B295FF4C2EUSAACMS0714e_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR revie of draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-03
Precedence: list

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-03
Title: IMAP Support for UTF-8
Reviewer: Glenn Parsons
Review Date: May 5, 2012
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Proposed Standard RFC but has a few issues that should be fixed before publication
Major Issues: None that I noticed...
Minor Issues:
3. (last para) Section 6 imply -> Section 6 implies
3.1 (first para) ...it informs the client that... -> ... it is informing the client that ...
this rewording clarifies that the ABNF is not sent with the capability :-)
3.2 It would be cleare if the ABNF were introduced (as in 3.1) ... eg. Add ..."with the following syntax:" to the last para. And further if the example was clearly marked "Example:" Further the C/S should not be double spaced.
8. This document adds two new ... -> This document defines two ...
In both paragraphs as these are already in the IANA registry.
8. IMAP4 list selection -> IMAP4 LIST-EXTENDED
...since that is the IANA registry name
8.3 3.4.1 -> 3.4.2
... though I would be tempted to change them all to just 3.4
Nits:
** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 4 characters in excess of 72.
== The 'Obsoletes: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be obsoleted by this document (if approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.
== The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires).
== Missing Reference: 'RFC 5258' is mentioned on line 286, but not defined
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis has been published as RFC 6532

[apps-discuss] APPSDIR revie of draft-ietf-eai-57… Glenn Parsons