The -10 version of this draft addresses all of the items noted in the Gen-ART review of the -09 version. It's ready for publication. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Black, David > Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 9:07 PM > To: Alexey Melnikov (alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx); dcridland@xxxxxxxxxx; General > Area Review Team (gen-art@xxxxxxxx) > Cc: Black, David; Barry Leiba (barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx); imapext@xxxxxxxx; > ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-qresync-rfc5162bis-09 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-qresync-rfc5162bis-09 > Reviewer: David L. Black > Review Date: January 26, 2014 > IETF LC End Date: January 27, 2014 > > Summary: > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has minor issues that > should be fixed before publication. > > This draft consolidates RFC 4551 (IMAP Conditional STORE) and RFC 5162 > (IMAP Quick Mailbox Resynchronization) into a single document and makes > a few minor updates. It also updates the command line length > recommendation in RFC 2683 to support the longer command lines that > can occur with these extensions. > > As this is an update, I checked the diffs against RFC 4551 and RFC 5162; > they look reasonable. I found one minor issue that should be relatively > easy to address. > > Minor Issues: > > The command line length change in Section 4 applies to all IMAP commands, > and hence affects old servers, including those that don't implement either > of the extensions in this draft. That raises a backwards compatibility > concern - what happens when a new client sends a > 1000 character command > line to an old server that isn't expecting more than 1000 characters? > > One possibility would be to apply the larger length recommendation only > after the client determines that the server supports at least one of > these extensions. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > The update to RFC 2683 would be easier to find from the table of contents > if the title of Section 4 were changed to "Long Command Lines (Update to > RFC 2683)". > > idnits 2.13.01 got confused by the command line examples, and flagged a > downref: > > ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2683 > > That downref appears to be ok and intended, as noted in the shepherd's > writeup. > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > david.black@xxxxxxx Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ----------------------------------------------------