Comprehensive WG LC review of draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-06 (IMAP)

Hi.  Review attached as promised.

The funky numbering is due to this having been mostly complete
on -04.  There might still be some residual issues from it.

Martin raised the question of whether the titles of these
documents are really what we want.  This is just about the last
chance if anyone has strong feelings and specific suggestions.

    best,
     john

draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-06

(1) Introduction, paragraph 1

Nit: Extra space after "[RFC6532]" and before "." in the first
sentence. 

I believe that the Introduction would be improved by starting
it with a paragraph very similar to the first paragraph of the
introduction to draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis (ideally as
modified in response to this set of comments).

(1a) Introduction, paragraph 3

I believe this is sufficient, but someone is almost certain to
want a complete discussion about differences from 5738.  We
should prepare for a small snit about refusing.  I note that