Subject: [imapext] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-qresync-rfc5162bis-03.txt

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:34:46 +0100

Dear Alexey & Dave,

Here is my review for draft-ietf-qresync-rfc5162bis-03.txt as it stands.

Note that I realize that you are merging two documents.  The result
still needs to read as a single document.  The introduction does not. 
Also, it is unusual to have normative language in the introduction, and
in the 2nd sentence to boot.  You've put the motivation for the work on
the bottom of page 4 and into page 5.  Please move that up to the top. 
Make clear the difference without the extension in use and then with.

>    Mod-sequences allow a client that supports the CONDSTORE extension to
>    determine if a message metadata has changed since some known moment.
Please explain why this is important.

3.1. syntax: is the word SEARCH missing from the front?

Minor issues

The abstract is too long.  Much of the content belongs in the introduction.

Use of system clock could be allowed so long as a check is made to
insure that the value is guaranteed to increase.  For example:

    if ((mod_sequence=clock()) <=last_mod_sequence) {
        mod_sequence=last_mod_sequence+1;
    }

Your reference to RFC1305 should probably be RFC5905.  Please check
other references for similar updates since RFC5162.

Can you please confirm with me that you have (re)tested the examples to
make sure they're accurate?  I've checked the ABNF and it looks good.

Eliot

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:10:01 +0000

> Dear Alexey & Dave,
Hi Eliot,
Thank you for your review.
> Make clear the difference without the extension in use and then with.
Yes, I will update. If people have good suggestions for this section, 
that would also be great.
> Please explain why this is important.

Resynchronization of metadata (e.g. flag changes) is one of the reasons to resynchronize at all. (Other reasons are to find new and deleted messages).
Why do you think this needs explanation?

> 3.1. syntax: is the word SEARCH missing from the front?
There is no syntax in the section 3.1. Unless you meant one of the 
subsections?
> The abstract is too long.  Much of the content belongs in the introduction.
I am not sure about this. I wanted to show that there are two extensions 
defined in the document. Do you think this is too much detail?
>          mod_sequence=last_mod_sequence+1;
The sentence in the document is about naive use (without the check you 
suggest). I can clarify, but I believe it is correct as written.
> other references for similar updates since RFC5162.
Yes. And there was a duplicated reference. Fixed in my copy.
> make sure they're accurate?
Yes.
> I've checked the ABNF and it looks good.
Great.