[apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-imapmove-command

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 21 November 2012 02:39 UTC

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:39:13 -0800
Message-Id: <201211210239.qAL2dD1N073632@medusa.blackops.org>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-imapmove-command.all@tools.ietf.org
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-imapmove-command
Precedence: list

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate (appsdir) 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-imapmove-command
Title: The IMAP Move Extension
Reviewer: Murray Kucherawy
Review Date: November 20, 2012
IETF Last Call Date: (ends) November 21, 2012
IESG Telechat Date: November 29, 2012

SUMMARY:

This draft is almost ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC,
but has a few issues that should be considerered before it is advanced.

As a participant, I support the publication of this work.

MAJOR ISSUES:

1) Section 4: Shouldn't each of these referenced RFCs that define other
   IMAP extensions be officially updated by this one?  (This may not be
   "major" but it seems to be the one point I have that's most likely to
   draw a DISCUSS.)

MINOR ISSUES:

1) Section 3.2, suggest:

OLD:
  This extends the first form of the UID command (see [RFC3501],
  Section 6.4.8) to add ...

NEW:
  The first form of the UID command ([RFC3501], Section 6.4.8) is
  extended to add ...

2) Seciton 4.1:  Are we worried here about non-normative "may" and "should"?

3) I am not experienced at IMAP, but it might be helpful to include in
   Section 3.3 an example of what it might look like if a request to move
   a set of messages resulted in some messages moved and some left in place.

NITS:

1) Suggest mentioning that the intent of this work is to create an atomic
move operation, just to be explicit.  (I think what I'm suggesting is to
use the word "atomic" in your intro text.)

2) s/COPY affect MOVE/COPY also affect MOVE/

3) s/, however,/.  However,/

4) s/even with the/even when the/

[apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-imapm… Murray S. Kucherawy
Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-i… Barry Leiba
Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-i… Murray S. Kucherawy
Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-i… Barry Leiba
Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-i… Ned Freed