Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-list-myrights-05

From: Dale Worley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2018 12:53:26 -0700

Reviewer: Dale Worley
Review result: Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft.  The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document:  draft-ietf-extra-imap-list-myrights-05
Reviewer:  Dale R. Worley
Review Date:  2018-05-06
IETF LC End Date:  2018-05-14
IESG Telechat date: [not scheduled]

Summary:

       This draft is ready for publication as a standards-track RFC,
       with some very minor (AUTH48-level) wording nits.

3.  MYRIGHTS Return Option to LIST Command

   The ordering of the responses is significant only in that
   the server MUST NOT send a MYRIGHTS response for a given mailbox
   before it sends the LIST response for that mailbox.

It's clear what this means, but I think the wording is not quite
correct.  Perhaps:

   The ordering of the responses is constrained only in that ...

or

   The ordering of the responses is not significant and is constrained
   only in that ...

(In regard to the substance of this constraint, it's not clear to me
why it exists, but I assume that the authors know of a reason for it.)

--

   Clients SHOULD use a suitable match pattern and/or selection
   option to limit the set of mailboxes returned to only those whose
   rights in which they are interested.

I *think* the syntax of the final clause is not quite correct, and I
*think* this is the corrected version:

   Clients SHOULD use a suitable match pattern and/or selection option
   to limit the set of mailboxes returned to only those in whose
   rights they are interested.

But you may want to check with the RFC Editor.

4.  Examples

   In this example the LIST reply for the "foo" mailbox is returned ...

This should start "In the following example..." or "In the next
example...", because if the screen cuts off the text just below this
paragraph, the description appears to apply to the preceding example,
which does not match this text.

[END]

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 14:42:26 +0100

> correct.

I don’t understand why you think it’s wrong as it is.  I think it’s fine
(well, it’s my text, actually, so of course I do) and don’t see the
problem.  While your suggestions are also OK, I don’t think any is better.

> why it exists, but I assume that the authors know of a reason for it.)

The reason is that the client will be building a data structure of
mailboxes, and it’s possible that clients won’t be able to handle a
MYRIGHTS response when they have not built the mailbox entry from the
corresponding LIST response.  Another way to handle this would be to say
that clients MUST be able to do that, it’s very unlikely that a server
implementation would want to send them in the other order anyway, so it’s
easier to set the restriction there.

Barry