Hi > >4. In section 2.4.2.1, first paragraph it says "Implementations are > >encouraged to use short-circuit evaluation in these cases." > This seems > >an arbitrary and somewhat obvious bit of implementation advice. > > > This text is trying to say that implementations may (even > MAY) use short-circuit evaluation. > I agree that this section might not be the obvious place for > this kind of advice, but I think it is Ok. > Unless you want to have a separate section stating > implementation considerations?
I don't think we need an implementation section. The text just struck me as an odd thing to include. > > >12. In section 2.10.3, it says that "Implementations SHOULD > NOT deliver > >a message to the same mailbox more than once", but it > doesn't indicate > >under which circumstances it would be OK to do this. > > > > > This sentence is trying to say that implementations SHOULD > support duplicate elimination when a message is delivered to > the same mailbox, e.g. > > fileinto "ABC"; > fileinto "ABC"; > > should just behave as: > > fileinto "ABC"; > > I can't think of any other case when duplicate elimination > would be Ok. > Sorry, what are the cases when duplicate elimination shouldn't be done? Or are you agreeing there aren't any and perhaps we should change this to a MUST? Sharon _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
