On 9/1/09 at 10:36 PM +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
black_da...@emc.com wrote:
- The header upconversion behavior specification for non-UTF-8
mailstores appears to be incomplete.
- The recommendation to support MIME header upconversion for
"Other widely deployed MIME charsets" strikes me as
too vague to be useful guidance to implementers.
I'll leave these as they are without further instruction.
Section 3.1, next to last paragraph needs a couple of RFC 2119
keywords:
Mailbox
names must comply with the Net-Unicode Definition (section 2 of
MUST >-->^^^^
[RFC5198]) with the specific exception that they may not contain
MUST NOT >----------------------------------------->^^^^^^^
control characters (0000-001F, 0080-009F), delete (007F), line
separator (2028) or paragraph separator (2029).
Agreed. I've entered these as RFC Editor notes.
Fixed.
Section 7 recommends that all IMAP clients be modified to display a
clear error when the server advertises UTF8=ONLY. What's the
expected behavior of existing, unmodified clients?
Such clients will not be using the UTF8 parameter to SELECT/EXAMINE
(mailbox opening) commands, so they will fail to do anything useful.
But this is to be expected.
No change.
Nits/editorial comments:
Section 2 ought to introduce what's being added to the protocol.
Adaptations of the first two sentences in Section 10 (IANA
Considerations) would suffice.
Done.
While not strictly a security consideration, it would be useful for
section 11 to point out the potential for user confusion caused by
SEARCH command match strings that have different UTF-8 representations
but display identically or similarly (strings that look like they
should match don't).
(*mumble*) This seems to me a job for RFC 3629, not this document.
(And, BTW, it does so.)
** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document
I'll find that.
== The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate
Huh? It's in there. Or is this document so old that it doesn't use
the precise recommended wording? I'll leave that for the RFC Editor.
idnits 2.11.12 found a few things (I've deleted a couple of
obviously incorrect "Missing Reference:" warnings):
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2045' is defined on line 475, but no
explicit
reference was found in the text
Not sure if this one is needed or not.
Added a reference.
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2183' is defined on line 486, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
I've entered an RFC Editor note that updates the document to
reference this RFC.
Added.
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1341 (Obsoleted by RFC 1521)
According to authors this reference is intentional.
It is.
Thanks David (and Alexey).
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
