Subject: [Extra] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 05:02:05 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview-03: 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-fetch-preview/

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

A few small comments on the IANA section: It would be good to also provide a
name for each of the new registries (but I'm sure IANA will ask about this in
their review). However, I'm also wondering why you don't specify straight away
the use of the IETF Review policy as specified in RFC5226? Is there something
different in there that does not work for you?

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 11:46:52 -0400

> their review).

The two new registries *are* named there: "PREVIEW algorithms" and
"PREVIEW priority modifiers".

> However, I'm also wondering why you don't specify straight away

The difference is that IETF Review allows for Informational as well.
Realistically, though, I think it's just that this text was copied
from RFC 3501.

(And it's not 5226 any more: 8126 now.)

Barry

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:20:51 +0200

Hi Barry,

> On 3. Apr 2019, at 17:46, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> "PREVIEW priority modifiers”.

Ah, that wasn’t really clear to me from the text. I would have expected to also see IMAP in the name. Also I guess you could give IANA better instructions where to locate the registry (on the same page as the IMAP capabilities or a separate page). But I’m sure IANA will come back to you with these questions.

> Realistically, though, I think it's just that this text was copied

I would think that having IETF consensus is the important part here (and less the internet status) and that's covered by the IETF Review policy.

> (And it's not 5226 any more: 8126 now.)

Yes, that’s of course right. Sorry.

Mirja

---

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 08:42:58 -0400

Hi Mirja/Barry,

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019, at 5:21 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> I would think that having IETF consensus is the important part here 
> (and less the internet status) and that's covered by the IETF Review 
> policy.

"standards track or IESG-approved experimental RFC" is used for other IMAP related registries, but I agree that "IETF Review" should be sufficient here. I doubt we will get any extensions here, but I think we want IETF review for them.

Best Regards,
Alexey