Subject: [Extra] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 15:17:24 -0800

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-08: Yes

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-fcc/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the work everyone did on this document. The mechanism seems quite
useful. I have some minor suggestions that you may want to consider
incorporating.

I support Ben's discuss.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§1:

>  This extension defines a new optional tagged argument ":fcc" to
>  action commands which generate additional messages to allow a copy of

Nit: "...commands that generate..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3:

>  alters the behavior of action commands which generate additional

Nit: "...commands that generate..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3.2:

>  FCC         = ":fcc" string *FCC-OPTS
>                  ; per Section 2.6.2 of RFC5228,
>                  ; the tagged arguments in FCC may appear in any order

This threw me for a bit of a loop when I got to the example in section 5, and I
had to go carefully read RFC 5228 to figure out what was going on. I think this
would be much clearer and more accurate if the rule were described as:

>  FCC         = *FCC-OPTS ":fcc" string *FCC-OPTS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General:

I'm a little concerned about the fact that this extension is generating a
new message and attempting to store it into a potentially quota-controlled
user folder. This would seem to be a run-time error, about which RFC 5228
says:

>  When an error happens, implementations MUST notify the user that an
>  error occurred and which actions (if any) were taken, and do an
>  implicit keep.

This probably isn't the right behavior for FCC. I think a sentence or two of
guidance about what happens when an FCC action would put the destination
mailbox over quota are in order, particularly since they'll be different than
the guidance in the base SIEVE spec.

I might just be confused here -- corrections to any incorrect notions I've
expressed would be appreciated.