IMAP Extensions: Quick Flag Changes Resynchronization (CONDSTORE) and Quick Mailbox Resynchronization (QRESYNC)
draft-ietf-qresync-rfc5162bis-10
Yes
(Barry Leiba)
(Pete Resnick)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Sean Turner)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-02-19)
Unknown
This is a question, not a request for a text change. In section 4. Long Command Lines (Update to RFC 2683), does this work because the only implementations using command lines longer than 1000 bytes are using them to implement this spec? I wasn't completely comfortable updating RFC 2683 in a document that's mostly defining new extensions, wondering if that update would be visible enough to implementers who weren't reading this spec. I'm just majing sure I'm wrong about that ...
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown