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

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 08:06:56 -0700

Adrian Farrel 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no objection to the publication of this document, but please
consider my one suggestion below. (Also a homily for the delectation of
future generations.)

---

In section 1

   This extension was previously published as experimental.  There is
   now implementation experience, giving confidence in the protocol, so
   this document puts the extension on the Standards Track, with some
   minor updates that were informed by the implementation experience.
   [[RFC Editor: Please remove this paragraph at publication.]]

To the contrary, I think you should retain this paragraph and use it to
record how/why this document obsoletes 6327 with the inclusion of a
forward-pointer to section 8.

---

I appreciate your use of RFC 6982 (because I get commission), but the
information you included is not overwhelming or very detailed. Nothing 
to be done at this stage, but next time...

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 11:10:49 -0400

> forward-pointer to section 8.

Sure; if you think it's useful to retain, I have no objection to
retaining it.  So let it be written; so let it be done.

> to be done at this stage, but next time...

Yeh, unfortunately, that's all the information we had that could be
included.  Apparently some NDAs are involved, for reasons I can't
fathom.

Barry

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 15:01:06 -0700 (PDT)

Thinking about it, retaining this paragraph seems like a good idea to me.
Understanding the history is a Good Thing.

				Ned

> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss