Thanks for the response!
On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
wrote:
[...]
-- same paragraph : "The UTF8 command MAY fail."
Under what circumstances? (this seems sort of tacked onto the
paragraph--does it belong there?)
AFAICT, it is simply a warning to client writers that the server may (for
whatever reasons under whatever circumstances) send back an -ERR response to
the command, even if it advertises the capability. Seems appropriate.
-- 2.1, 4th paragraph: "...need not be accurate, but it is preferable if
they were."
Not preferable enough for a SHOULD? (Note that the previous sentence used
SHOULD for reporting actual message size counts)
There is no interoperability impact regarding sizes in STAT and free-form
text (unlike LIST), so SHOULD is inappropriate.
Okay.
-- section 7, 3rd paragraph: "It is possible for a man-in-the-middle
attacker to insert a LANG command in the command stream, thus making
protocol-level diagnostic responses unintelligible to the user."
This seems a bit unnecessary to call out, given that a MiTM could just
change the diagnostic responses into Klingon even in the absence of the LANG
command. It's at least worth mentioning that the LANG command really doesn't
make this issue worse than it already was.
Taken under advisement.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art