|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
The referred RFCs were approved by IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group).
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
Draft Rec.X.fcs refers to abstract part ofIETF RFC 2060 (December 1996)
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=2060
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
The status of all the referred RFCs is "Proposed Standard".
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
The status of all the referred RFCs is "Proposed Standard".
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
References within the referenced RFCs are listed under item (8).
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[1] Myers, J. "ACAP -- Application Configuration Access Protocol",/
Work in Progress./
[2] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,RFC 1700, USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994./
[3] Troost, R., and Dorner, S., "Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header",RFC 1806, June 1995./
[4] Myers, J., "IMAP4 Authentication Mechanism", RFC 1731.Carnegie-Mellon University, December 1994./
[5] Crispin, M., "IMAP4 Compatibility with IMAP2bis", RFC 2061, University of Washington, November 1996./
[6] Austein, R., "Synchronization Operations for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients", Work in Progress./
[7] Crispin, M. "IMAP4 Compatibility with IMAP2 and IMAP2bis", RFC 1732, University of Washington, December 1994./
[8] Crispin, M., "Distributed Electronic Mail Models in IMAP4", RFC 1733, University of Washington, December 1994./
[9] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol -Obsolete Syntax", RFC 2062, University of Washington, November 1996./
[10] Crispin, M., "Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version 2",RFC 1176, University of Washington, August 1990./
[11] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995./
[12] Myers, J., and M. Rose, "The Content-MD5 Header Field", RFC 1864, October 1995./
[13] Freed, N., and N. Borenstein, "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996./
[14] Freed, N., and N. Borenstein, "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November 1996./
[15] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, November 1996./
[16] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, University of Delaware, August 1982./
[17] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821, USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982./
[18] Goldsmith, D., and Davis, M., "UTF-7: A Mail-Safe Transformation Format of Unicode", RFC 1642, July 1994./
/
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
None
|
|
