Authors, We see that you have re-sent your approvals of the document; however, we await your reply to these 5 open questions. If you have already answered the questions, please forward that mail; we did not receive it.
Re: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9755.html (and other formats) On Feb 9, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > 1) <!--[rfced] Regarding the term "UTF8-quoted": We note this term > was also used in RFC 6855, which is the only RFC where this term > has appeared in this form. Does it refer to the ABNF rule > 'utf8-quoted' as defined in RFC 5738 (which is obsolete), or > to another concept? Should it be replaced with 'utf8-quoted' > or should the concept be written in prose? > > Original: > All IMAP servers that support "UTF8=ACCEPT" SHOULD accept UTF-8 in > mailbox names, and those that also support the Mailbox International > Naming Convention described in RFC 3501, Section 5.1.3, MUST accept > UTF8-quoted mailbox names and convert them to the appropriate > internal format. > --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] There is one Verified Technical errata report for RFC 6855: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4029 > This document contains the old text from Section 3 mentioned in that > report. Please review whether any updates are needed for this document. > --> > > > 3) <!--[rfced] Here, does "UTF8-related" mean related to > the UTF8 data item or related to the UTF-8 character encoding? > If the former, may the sentence be updated as follows? > > Original: > This document removes APPEND's UTF8 data item, making the > UTF8-related syntax compatible with IMAP4rev2 ... > > Perhaps: > This document removes APPEND's UTF8 data item, making the > syntax related to that data item compatible with IMAP4rev2 ... > --> > > > 4) <!--[rfced] Please clarify the "/" in "IMAP4rev1/2" here. > Is the intended meaning "and" or "or" or otherwise? > Original: > As of today, > an IMAP client cannot learn whether a particular message was stored > using the UTF8 data item, nor would it be able to trust that > information even if IMAP4rev1/2 were extended to provide that > information. > > Perhaps: > ... even if IMAP4rev1 and 2 were extended to provide that information. > --> > > > 5) <!--[rfced] In general in RFCs, the term "MIME type" > should be "media type". Please review whether these updates > convey the intended meaning. > > a new MIME type -> a new media type > > the MIME structure of a message > -> the media type of the body of a message > --> [#6 has been addressed.] [#7 asked for your review re: inclusive language; no open question.] Thank you. RFC Editor/ar -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
