Subject: [Extra] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 18:49:34 -0800

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04: 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-special-use/

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

Thanks to everyone who worked on this document. I have two minor suggestions for
improvement.

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

§1:

>  It also adds
>  the ability to file messages into an anonymous personal mailbox that
>  has a particular special-use attribute assigned using a ":specialuse"
>  argument for the "fileinto" command [SIEVE].

I was perplexed by the use of "anonymous" (here and elsewhere in the document),
expecting it to be a term of art defined in some other RFC. I poked around at
the plausible references and didn't find anything.

After reading the rest of the document, I *think* the notion is that you're
talking about a mailbox that is identified by its special-use attribute rather
than its name. If that's the intention, it might be clearer to simply say
"unnamed;" or, barring that, perhaps clarify in the Introduction what is meant
by "anonymous."

(Yes, I get that "unnamed" and "anonymous" are technically synonyms, but
"anonymous" typically is used as a term of art corresponding to personal
anonymity in the context of communications, making its use confusing in this
context without any additional explanation)

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

§2:

>  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>  document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].

Please use RFC 8174 boilerplate.

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 23:23:29 -0800 (PST)

> than its name.

Identified in the script. It does have a name.

> If that's the intention, it might be clearer to simply say

I'm not wild about anonymous but unnamed doesn't seem like an improvement to
me. The mailbox does have a name and this kind of makes it sound like it
doesn't.

Maybe something like "mailbox identified only by" or something similar?

> context without any additional explanation)

Also true.

				Ned

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 01:44:06 -0600

> Identified in the script. It does have a name.

Right. Sorry, English is terribly imprecise for this kind of thing. I 
meant it in the sense of "he who shall not be named," rather than "thing 
without a name," but of course your interpretation is the obvious one. 
Now that you've pointed that out, I agree that this isn't a significant 
improvement.

> Maybe something like "mailbox identified only by" or something similar?

That would certainly work, and it's much clearer.

/a

---

From: Stephan Bosch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 18:22:01 +0100

> That would certainly work, and it's much clearer.

OK, I'll make that change.

Regards,

Stephan.