[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The first portion of Section 2 is unclear as to whether it
is describing the elsewhere-specified behavior of IMAP vs.
imposing new requirements. A check of RFC 3501 indicates
that the entire notion of mod-sequence is new to this draft.
The first sentence of the second paragraph is the problem -
is should be rephrased to something like:
An IMAP server that supports this extension MUST associate
a positive unsigned 64-bit value called a modification
sequence (mod-sequence) with every IMAP message.
I've replaced the first sentence of the second paragraph with the one
you've suggested.
(-09 is coming out soon).
Beyond this, the draft is well-written with extensive
examples that will be of great use to implementers.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
