Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
Thanks for this effort. I am balloting "yes", but I have some minor (mostly editorial) comments: §1: Is there a reason not to use the new boilerplate from RFC 8174? §3.4: "the intermediate states produced do not occur," That seems an odd statement; one might say that if a state did not occur it was not produced. Would it make sense to just say "the intermediate states do not occur"? §3.5: "Unlike the APPEND command which is valid..." Missing comma before "which".
Please take a look at the Gen-ART review.
I'm curious about one point - In its simplest form, the REPLACE command is a single-command encapsulation of APPEND, STORE +flags \DELETED and UID EXPUNGE for a message, except that it avoids any of the quota implications or intermediate states associated with the 3 command sequence. In handling a REPLACE command, a server MUST NOT generate a response code for the STORE +flags \DELETED portion of the sequence. Additionally, servers supporting the REPLACE command MUST NOT infer any inheritance of content, flags, or annotations from the message being replaced. Finally, the replaced and replacing messages SHOULD NOT be present in the mailbox at the same time. I can imagine that having the replaced and replacing messages present at the same time is better than having the replaced message deleted and the replacing message not stored due to quota limits when pipelining APPEND, STORE, EXPUNGE, but is SHOULD the right level of requirement language here? Is MUST just a non-starter?
Section 1 (RFC 8174 provides an updated version of the BCP 14 boilerplate that can be used instead of the RFC 2119 boilerplate.) Section 3.5 Unlike the APPEND command which is valid in the authenticated state, the REPLACE and UID REPLACE commands MUST only be valid in the selected state. This difference from APPEND is necessary since REPLACE operates on message sequence numbers. The stated justification applies only to REPLACE. What is the justification for disallowing UID REPLACE from the authenticated state? Section 4.3 (Sending the APPENDUID in the tagged OK, as described in the UIDPLUS specification means that the client first receives an EXPUNGE for a message and afterwards APPENDUID for the new message. [...] nit: This comma is either spurious or missing a partner (if "as described in the UIDPLUS specification" is supposed to be a parenthetical).
Rich version of this review at: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D12061 COMMENTS S 2. > handling a REPLACE command, a server MUST NOT generate a response > code for the STORE +flags \DELETED portion of the sequence. > Additionally, servers supporting the REPLACE command MUST NOT infer > any inheritance of content, flags, or annotations from the message > being replaced. Finally, the replaced and replacing messages SHOULD > NOT be present in the mailbox at the same time. I don't think I understand this text. What would it look like for them to be present at the same time.