Subject: [Extra] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-imap-unauth-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 17:17:55 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-extra-imap-unauth-00: Yes

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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-imap-unauth/

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

This mechanism seems useful. Thanks to the author for sticking with it.

I support Martin's comment.

I also have a tiny editorial nit:

§8:

>  The original IMAP state machine was designed to allow a server
>  implementation approach where each IMAP authentication identity
>  matches an operating system identity and the server revokes all
>  administrative privilege onces authentication completes.

Typo: "once"