This really is a review of version -08 even if it said -05 on the last mail.
I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this specification (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Document: draft-melnikov-imap-ext-abnf-08.txt Intended Status: Proposed Standard (Individual submission via AD) Shepherding AD: Scott Hollenbeck Review Trigger: IESG Telechat 2 February 2006 Summary: This revision of the document deals with all my comments from the -05 version which I reviewed for last call. It is ready for PS. Good piece of work! I found a few editorial nits in the updates, but these can be fixed during copy editing. Editorial nits (for forwarding to RFC Editor): Abstract/s1: I guess we ought to expand ABNF on first occurrence (instead of at the start of s3) and give the [ABNF] reference in s1. s2.5, next to last para: s/Each modified is an/Each modifier is an/ s2.7: s/This document hasn't specified any semantical change/This document does not specify any semantic change/ s2.7: s/got extended/had already been extended/ s3, comment to definition of append-ext: s/define/defines/ s3, comment to definition of search-program: It would be useful to reference the RFC which specifies the relevant IANA registration procedure. s4, para 2: Sugggest replacing: To the extent this document makes the parser more complex, it makes this situation worse. To this extent this document makes the parser more consistent and thus simpler, the situation is improved. with: To the extent that this document makes the parser more complex, it makes this situation worse. However this document also makes the parser more consistent and thus simpler overall, which is likely to improve the situation. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
