Subject: Re: [Extra] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 15:30:23 +1100

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020, at 01:22, Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker wrote:
> Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid/
> 

Hi Magnus,

Sorry for the lack of response on this - I missed it somehow at the time!

> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> First part is a formality discuss that likely is fairly easy to resolve
> 
> So this document uses formal syntax, however it does not explicitly reference
> which. So I noticed RFC 5228 that do reference RFC 4234 which is now obsolete,
> and the current in force version of ABNF is RFC 5234. Also as no WSP are
> included in the rules, this document appears to use ABNF to express RFC 5228
> grammar and not parsing syntax. So please clarify prior to the usages what the
> formal language is and what it represents.
> 
> So this needs to be done prior to Section 5. But, can you please check that you
> actually have the same level of  formal syntax in Section 5 that goes through
> RFC 8580 as what is in Section 8. Otherwise please clarify both.

I'm happy to drop the formal language section entirely.  I just checked RFC8579 which describes a very similar extension and it has no formal ABNF section.  Would you be satisfied with having the ABNF dropped entirely and using prose and descriptions similar to what's in RFC8579?

> Secondly, I do consider the defining text first paragraph of in Section 4.1 so
> hard to interpret that it must be fixed prior to publication. So although you
> already are going to address it based on discussion of Martin Duke's comment, I
> want to hold a discuss on this.

I will wordsmith that and post a new draft.

Thanks,

Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [email-masked]

---

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:03:57 +1100

I have posted -07 which has the following text:

   For servers which also support the [RFC5490] mailbox extension, if
   both the ":create" and ":mailboxid" arguments are provided to a
   "fileinto" command and no matching mailbox is found, then a new
   mailbox will be created.

   This new mailbox will have the name specified by the positional
   mailbox argument ([RFC5228] section 4.1), however it will get a
   different mailboxid (chosen by the server) rather than the one
   specified by the ":mailboxid" argument to fileinto.

If that's still not clear enough I would love some help describing this.

-07 also removes the attempt to provide formal language definitions, as it appears that other sieve extensions have not, so this brings it into alignment with the others.

Thanks,

Bron

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021, at 15:30, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Extra mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra
>

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 14:19:49 +0000

Hi,

I was unfortunately sick last week so I didn't managed to respond before you
done the work. 

>From my perspective adding the references would have been better as formal
syntax if correct are very useful. I don't know enough about sieve
specifications to know if removing the formal language here is good enough
or making the specification a bit worse. My discuss was only to ensure
things was clear, and though some small wording additions and correct
references would have resolved things.

WG and Barry, what are your opinion on this change?

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

From: Bron Gondwana <[email-masked]> 
Sent: den 8 februari 2021 05:30
To: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>; The IESG
<[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; Jiankang Yao <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on
draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: (with DISCUSS)

 

 

 

Hi Magnus,

 

DISCUSS:

So this document uses formal syntax, however it does not explicitly
reference

which. So I noticed RFC 5228 that do reference RFC 4234 which is now
obsolete,

grammar and not parsing syntax. So please clarify prior to the usages what
the

So this needs to be done prior to Section 5. But, can you please check that
you

actually have the same level of  formal syntax in Section 5 that goes
through

I'm happy to drop the formal language section entirely.  I just checked
RFC8579 which describes a very similar extension and it has no formal ABNF
section.  Would you be satisfied with having the ABNF dropped entirely and
using prose and descriptions similar to what's in RFC8579?

Secondly, I do consider the defining text first paragraph of in Section 4.1
so

hard to interpret that it must be fixed prior to publication. So although
you

already are going to address it based on discussion of Martin Duke's
comment, I

Thanks,

Bron.

--

  [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>