Document: draft-ietf-imapext-i18n-14 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2008-01-27 IETF LC End Date: 2008-01-29 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. There are editorial issues that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: In general this draft is very easy to read and understand. I believe my comments are all editorial, although the first one might be considered substantive by some. Sections 5 and 9 entirely consist of problem identification, guidance to implementors of IMAP in general, and even some possible best practices, much of which are not directly related to the extensions being defined in this draft. While I agree it is valuable information, I wonder if it is more appropriate to include them in a standards track RFC, or to remove them to one or more separate informational RFCs. I do not mean to dispute the will of the working group; I merely bring it up to make sure people have thought about it. That is, it's okay with me if the answer is "we've thought about it, and prefer to keep it the way it is". Section 4.3, paragraph 1: Plural subject "servers" does not agree with "advertises" and "doesn't support" later in the sentence. Section 4.4. paragraph 1: Plural subject "servers" does not agree with "advertises" and "doesn't support" later in the sentence. Section 4.5, last paragraph: I assume this paragraph was not intended to be normative, given the lower-case "should"s. I call attention to it only to make sure that is the authors' intent. Section 4.6, 3 paragraphs from end: " <>" Do you still intend to add the example, or is the text obsolete? I think an example would help. Finally, IDNITS returns the following comments, that I include without prejudice: > Checking nits according to > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt > : > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > > == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there > was 17 > longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 60 lines > > == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found > 0 form > feeds but 18 pages > > > Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > > ** There are 5 instances of too long lines in the document, the > longest one > being 2 characters in excess of 72. > > > Miscellaneous warnings: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > > == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not > match the > current year > > > Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > > (See RFC 3967 for information about using normative references to > lower-maturity documents in RFCs) > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of > draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-11 >