I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-imapext-i18n-14
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-01-27
IETF LC End Date: 2008-01-29
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard.
There are editorial issues that should be considered prior to
publication.
Comments:
In general this draft is very easy to read and understand. I believe
my comments are all editorial, although the first one might be
considered substantive by some.
Sections 5 and 9 entirely consist of problem identification, guidance
to implementors of IMAP in general, and even some possible best
practices, much of which are not directly related to the extensions
being defined in this draft. While I agree it is valuable information,
I wonder if it is more appropriate to include them in a standards
track RFC, or to remove them to one or more separate informational
RFCs. I do not mean to dispute the will of the working group; I merely
bring it up to make sure people have thought about it. That is, it's
okay with me if the answer is "we've thought about it, and prefer to
keep it the way it is".
Section 4.3, paragraph 1:
Plural subject "servers" does not agree with "advertises" and "doesn't
support" later in the sentence.
Section 4.4. paragraph 1:
Plural subject "servers" does not agree with "advertises" and "doesn't
support" later in the sentence.
Section 4.5, last paragraph:
I assume this paragraph was not intended to be normative, given the
lower-case "should"s. I call attention to it only to make sure that is
the authors' intent.
Section 4.6, 3 paragraphs from end: " <<Add an example>>"
Do you still intend to add the example, or is the text obsolete? I
think an example would help.
Finally, IDNITS returns the following comments, that I include without
prejudice:
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there
was 17
longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 60 lines
== It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds -
found 0 form
feeds but 18 pages
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** There are 5 instances of too long lines in the document, the
longest one
being 2 characters in excess of 72.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not
match the
current year
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFC 3967 for information about using normative references to
lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-11
Thanks!
Ben.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
