Subject: [Extra] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap-unauth-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 10:06:44 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-extra-imap-unauth-00: 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 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I was surprised to see normative language in this text in 4.2 since this
behavior is specified elsewhere, not here:

When a TLS [RFC5246] security layer is negotiated either via the
   STARTTLS command or use of the imaps port [RFC6186], IMAP servers MAY
   be configured to request a client certificate and IMAP clients MAY
   provide one.