Dear RFC Editor,
On 04/02/2025 06:25, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use onhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
2) <!--[rfced] The acknowledgments mentions the editor of this document;
however, none of the authors has been listed as the editor (meaning
"Ed." would appear after their name). Should one person (or more) be
listed as the editor(s) of this document?
(If not, this sentence will be changed to "The authors of this
document".)
This is a very reasonable suggestion.
Original:
Editor of this document would like to thank the following ...
-->
3) <!--[rfced] Abstract: Does the updated text convey the intended
meaning? The idea is to not rely on "/" for meaning and to clarify how
the first set of commands (FETCH, SEARCH, STORE, COPY, MOVE) relates
to the second set (APPEND, UID EXPUNGE).
Original:
The MESSAGELIMIT extension of the Internet Message Access Protocol
(RFC 3501/RFC 9051) allows servers to announce a limit on the number
of messages that can be processed in a single
FETCH/SEARCH/STORE/COPY/MOVE (or their UID variants), APPEND or UID
EXPUNGE command.
Current:
The MESSAGELIMIT extension of the Internet Message Access Protocol
(RFC 3501/RFC 9051) allows servers to announce a limit on the number
of messages that can be processed in a single FETCH, SEARCH, STORE,
COPY, or MOVE command (or their UID variants), or in a single APPEND
or UID EXPUNGE command.
[And similarly in the Introduction]
This is fine.
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] May the first sentences of the Abstract and
Introduction be updated to simply point to RFC 9051 rather than
RFC 3501, as RFC 9501 is the current version of IMAP?
Because there is already an explicit statement in Section 1
that the extension is compatible with "both IMAP4rev1 [RFC3501]
and IMAP4rev2 [RFC9051]", please consider whether in other
instances throughout the document the reference to RFC 3501
may be updated to RFC 9051.
Abstract
Original:
The MESSAGELIMIT extension of the Internet Message Access Protocol
(RFC 3501/RFC 9051) allows ...
Perhaps:
The MESSAGELIMIT extension of the Internet Message Access Protocol
(RFC 9051) allows ...
I have slight preference to listing both in the Abstract. Is that Ok?
Introduction
Original:
This document defines an extension to the Internet Message Access
Protocol [RFC3501] for announcing ...
Perhaps:
This document defines an extension to the Internet Message Access
Protocol [RFC9051] for announcing ...
-->
The above is fine, as long as you keep the following sentence as is:
This extension is compatible with both
IMAP4rev1 [RFC3501] and IMAP4rev2 [RFC9051].
5) <!--[rfced] Section 3.1: May this text be updated as follows?
Should "EXPUNGE" be "UID EXPUNGE" here?
Actually both are covered by this section.
Original:
3.1. Returning limits on the number of messages processed in a single
SEARCH/FETCH/STORE/COPY/MOVE/APPEND/EXPUNGE command
Perhaps Option A:
3.1. Returning Limits on the Number of Messages Processed in a Single
Command (SEARCH, FETCH, STORE, COPY, MOVE, APPEND, EXPUNGE)
or Option B (to simplify):
3.1. Returning Limits on the Number of Messages Processed in a Single
Command
I think I like Option B.
-->
6) <!--[rfced] FYI, line breaks have been added in order to fit the
line-width restrictions of the text output. Please let us know if
changes are needed.
-->
7) <!--[rfced] This document mentions the "message set parameter" twice.
Will this be clear to the reader?
I think so, as there is only one parameter that matches the description.
We do not see mention of this term
in RFC 9051 or other RFCs.
Current:
(For the MOVE command, the message set parameter needs to be ...
[...]
(For the STORE command, the message set parameter also needs to be ...
-->
8) <!--[rfced] The first item uses notation; the second uses words.
May this be updated as follows for consistency?
Original:
Operations on a mailbox that has <= N messages are not affected.
In a mailbox with more than N messages:
Suggested:
* Operations are not affected on a mailbox that has N messages
or fewer.
* In a mailbox with more than N messages:
Or (if you prefer notation):
* Operations on a mailbox that has <= N messages are not affected.
* In a mailbox with > N messages:
Either alternative is fine. The latter?
-->
9) <!-- [rfced] Please review each artwork element and let us know if any should
be marked as sourcecode (or another element) instead.
FYI, we updated artwork to sourcecode type="abnf" in Section 5. Please confirm
that this is accurate.
That is correct.
The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>.
If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to
suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable
to leave the "type" attribute not set.
-->
10) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->
11) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have removed the index from this document,
as an index with a single entry does not seem useful.
-->
Ok!
Best Regards,
Alexey
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
