Subject: [apps-discuss] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 10:57:09 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2:

"A server that supports this extension includes "MULTISEARCH" in its IMAP
capability string."

This jumped out at me as I would have expected a statement like this to
be a normative requirement, rather than a statement of fact.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 14:11:55 -0400

> be a normative requirement, rather than a statement of fact.

Why is that not a normative requirement?  It tells how the protocol
works.  If you don't do that, you're not doing this protocol.

Maybe Pete and I should have a chat with you in Honolulu....
:-)

Barry

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 11:49:29 -0700

>Maybe Pete and I should have a chat with you in Honolulu....

No need, Murray explained your general position on this to me offline
(which I did not understand from your message above).

Alissa