I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-client-06.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date:  2007-10-16
IETF LC End Date: 2007-07-26
IESG Telechat date: 2007-10-18

Summary: Ready, minor comments

Comments:

1. I assume the WG carefully considered the risks of loss of
synchronization due to VANISHED responses sent at the wrong time
(i.e. at the times forbidden in the second half of section 3.6).
I don't know IMAP well enough to know if there's a way to rebuild
correct state after a synchronization error.

2. I don't understand the reference to AUTH48 in the IANA Considerations.
Normally such an update would be made by arrangement between IANA
and the RFC Editor during editing, before AUTH48. In any case, is
the WG recommending that the chosen name for the capability should
be "QRESYNC"? If so, why not just say so?