Draft-17 looks good to me, although I do notice one rather strange reference:
[CHARSET] Freed, N., and Postel, J. "IANA Character Set Registration Procedures", Work in Progress. Ned? Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Lawrence Greenfield wrote: > > The normative part of the references: > > [IMAP-IMPLEMENTATION] Leiba, B. "IMAP Implementation > > Recommendations", RFC 2683, September 1999. > > [IMAP-MULTIACCESS] Gahrns, M. "IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox > > Practice", RFC 2180, July 1997. > > both of which are informational RFCs. This seems strange to me. > > Well, I don't know what to do here. > > The information in these two documents is very important to writing an > interoperable implementation; we've all agreed that the information in > these documents is important. If they are not in the normative section, > then they are likely to be unread (and worse, defied). 2683 really is informational, but I think it's correct that 2683 is "necessary to understand this document properly". It's unusual, but it seems correct. 2595 looks worse. Making STARTTLS m-t-i means that the IMAP parts of 2595 aren't informational any more. Perhaps 2595 needs to be reissued? --Arnt
