Subject: [Extra] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 23:43:08 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview-09: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In Section 1, this reads oddly:

   Using server-generated previews allows global generation once per
   message, and then cached for the retention period of the source
   message.

Perhaps add "they can be" before "cached"?

Down in Section 7, I'm not sure the URL is necessary or wise to include.  If
IANA should choose to change it for whatever reason, this reference becomes
obsolete.  I think the name of the registry is sufficient.

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 23:46:38 -0700

We may have found more fodder for the "different IESG (member)s give
different advice at different times" bin, as we've had ADs ask for registry
URLs in the past, to help identify the registry in question.

That said, my understanding is that IANA is fairly committed to keeping the
registry URLs stable, but not specific fragment identifiers within a page.

-Ben

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 03:19:38 -0400

Indeed, and I believe the latest version of BCP 26 suggests including a URI.

In any case, the RFC Editor can always remove or change it later if IANA
prefers.

Barry

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:20:39 -0700

> URLs in the past, to help identify the registry in question.

I'd never seen URLs included prior to the last few months.  It's been
strange to start seeing them.

The URLs seem redundant to me.  The name of the registry or sub-registry is
what's canonical, not the URL.

We could ask IANA if they have a preference, I suppose.

-MSK

---

From: Michael Slusarz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 21:14:34 -0600 (MDT)

> On 09/22/2020 12:43 AM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

How about expanding "they" to specifically reference the preview to eliminate ambiguity?

So:

    Using server-generated previews allows global generation once per message,
    and that preview can be cached for the retention period of the source message.

michael