Thanks for the response! On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Pete Resnick <presn...@qualcomm.com> wrote: >
[...] >> -- same paragraph : "The UTF8 command MAY fail." >> >> Under what circumstances? (this seems sort of tacked onto the >> paragraph--does it belong there?) >> > > AFAICT, it is simply a warning to client writers that the server may (for > whatever reasons under whatever circumstances) send back an -ERR response to > the command, even if it advertises the capability. Seems appropriate. > >> -- 2.1, 4th paragraph: "...need not be accurate, but it is preferable if >> they were." >> >> Not preferable enough for a SHOULD? (Note that the previous sentence used >> SHOULD for reporting actual message size counts) >> > > There is no interoperability impact regarding sizes in STAT and free-form > text (unlike LIST), so SHOULD is inappropriate. > Okay. >> -- section 7, 3rd paragraph: "It is possible for a man-in-the-middle >> attacker to insert a LANG command in the command stream, thus making >> protocol-level diagnostic responses unintelligible to the user." >> >> This seems a bit unnecessary to call out, given that a MiTM could just >> change the diagnostic responses into Klingon even in the absence of the LANG >> command. It's at least worth mentioning that the LANG command really doesn't >> make this issue worse than it already was. >> > > Taken under advisement. > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > gen-...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
