Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9122 <draft-ietf-extra-sieve-action-registry-06> for your review

[Ken Murchison <[e-mail]>]

I think I would prefer a table, but I won't argue against a list .


On 5/17/23 12:05 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi Lynne,
>
> On 16/05/2023 21:27, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
>> Hi, Alexey and Ken.
>>
>> Thank you for your quick replies!  Further updates are in progress.
>>
>> Regarding our question 6) and the original table in Section 2.2:  
>> Thank you for your guidance.  We are looking into splitting Table 1 
>> into two tables, but would you prefer breaking all of the table rows 
>> out into 18 lists?  For example, the first of the 18 items would look 
>> as follows:
>>
>> Name: addheader
>> Description: Add a header field to the existing message header
>> References: [RFC5293]
>> Capabilities: "editheader"
>> Action Interactions: All subsequent tests and actions apply to the 
>> altered message
>> Cancels Implicit Keep?  No
>> Can Use with IMAP Events?  Yes
>
> This would be fine with me. Whatever is Ok with both you and IANA 
> would be fine.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Alexey
>
>>
>> Thanks again!
>>
>> RFC Editor/lb
>>
>>
>>> On May 15, 2023, at 7:35 AM, Alexey Melnikov 
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> On 15/05/2023 13:52, Ken Murchison wrote:
>>>> I approve of the current editorial changes made by the editors.  
>>>> Answers to outstanding questions are inline below.
>>> I concur.
>>>> On 5/13/23 2:27 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>> Authors,
>>>>>
>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as 
>>>>> necessary)
>>>>> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] The registration policy for the Sieve Actions 
>>>>> Registry is
>>>>> Expert Review, which we do not believe requires an IETF Stream RFC.
>>>>> Therefore, we have removed "IETF Stream" from the the following. 
>>>>> Please let
>>>>> us know if any corrections are needed.
>>> This is fine.
>>>>> In addition, please consider whether "vendor specific actions" 
>>>>> should be
>>>>> "vendor-specific documentation" (or similar) since "actions" has a 
>>>>> specific
>>>>> meaning in this document.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> Registration
>>>>> of both actions specified in IETF Stream RFCs and vendor specific
>>>>> actions is allowed and encouraged.
>>>>> -->
>>>> I would be fine with this changes, but will defer to Alexey on the 
>>>> final determination.
>>> I like "vendor-specific documentation", so let's do this change.
>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Should the template be formatted more like a blank
>>>>> template readers can use for future registrations? For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> Name: name of the action
>>>>> Description: short description
>>>>> References: one or more documents describing the action and
>>>>> any significant updates to its definition (this field
>>>>> is required for actions described in RFCs and is optional
>>>>> otherwise).
>>>>> Capabilities: Interactions with other Sieve actions (as described in
>>>>> Section 2.10.1 of [RFC5228]), if any.
>>>>> Action Interactions: ...
>>>>> Cancels Implicit Keep? ...
>>>>> Can Use With IMAP Events? ...
>>>>> Comments: ...
>>>>> -->
>>>> Yes, I think an empty template would be preferable.
>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] We added an informative reference to RFC 8126 to 
>>>>> help the
>>>>> user understand Expert Review and designated expert. Please let us 
>>>>> know if
>>>>> you have any objections.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> Registration procedure for this registry is Expert Review.
>>>>>
>>>>> Current:
>>>>> The registration procedure for this registry is Expert Review 
>>>>> [RFC8126].
>>>>> -->
>>>> No objection to adding a reference to RFC 9126.
>>> I assume you meant 8126.
>>> No objections from me either.
>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] "err on the side of registering" is a bit awkward. 
>>>>> May we
>>>>> update the text as follows?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> The Designated
>>>>> Expert can’t reject a registration based on personal dislike of the
>>>>> document defining an action and should always err on the side of
>>>>> registering, even if documentation is not complete.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suggested:
>>>>> The designated
>>>>> expert can’t reject a registration because of a personal dislike 
>>>>> for the
>>>>> document defining an action and should always err on the side of 
>>>>> approving
>>>>> the registration, even if documentation is not complete.
>>>>> -->
>>>> The suggested text looks good to me.
>>> +1.
>>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we suggest the following update.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> Addition of a new reference to an existing registration or change to
>>>>> the description field goes through the same registration procedure as
>>>>> a new registration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suggested:
>>>>> The same registration procedure is used to add a new reference
>>>>> or to change the description field of an existing registration.
>>>>> -->
>>>> The suggested text looks good to me.
>>> +1.
>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] The table extends well beyond the 69 characters 
>>>>> per line
>>>>> limitation. We are discussing any possible options within our 
>>>>> team. However,
>>>>> do you have any suggestions for trimming it down? We are getting 
>>>>> warnings
>>>>> like the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> rfc9122.xml(195): Warning: Total table width (84) exceeds 
>>>>> available width (69)
>>>>> rfc9122.xml(195): Warning: Too long line found (L133), 15 
>>>>> characters longer than 72 characters:
>>>>> +============+=============+==========+==============+============+========+=======+ 
>>>>>
>>>>> rfc9122.xml(195): Warning: Too long line found (L134), 15 
>>>>> characters longer than 72 characters:
>>>>> |Name |Description |References|Capabilities |Action |Cancels |Can 
>>>>> Use|
>>>>> rfc9122.xml(195): Warning: Too long line found (L135), 15 
>>>>> characters longer than 72 characters:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> -->
>>>> I would have 3 possible suggestions which could be used 
>>>> independently or in concert:
>>>> • Remove the Capabilities column, as its contents can be inferred 
>>>> from the References column
>>> I don't like this, as it would be helpful to have this information 
>>> in the IANA registry.
>>>
>>>> • Split the table into two: one for actions that can be used with 
>>>> IMAP Events and one for those that can not.
>>> This can work, but maybe start with the following suggestion first:
>>>> • Change the Action Interactions column to just be a reference to 
>>>> numbered footnotes as most of the text is used multiple times:
>>>> • All subsequent tests and actions apply to the altered message
>>>> • All subsequent tests and actions, except "redirect" apply to the 
>>>> altered message
>>>> • Incompatible with "vacation" action. Typically is not permitted 
>>>> with actions that cause mail delivery, such as "keep", "fileinto", 
>>>> and "redirect".
>>>> • Use of :copy suppresses cancelation of implicit keep
>>>> • Incompatible with "reject" and "ereject" actions.
>>> That would be fine with me!
>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] The Acknowledgements currently says "TBD." Please 
>>>>> let us
>>>>> know if you'd like to update the text or if if should be removed 
>>>>> from the
>>>>> document.
>>>>> -->
>>>> I'll leave this for Alexey.
>>> I did a quick scan of mailing list discussions and I suggest to add 
>>> the following:
>>>    Thank you to Barry Leiba, Donald Eastlake, Yoshiro Yoneya, Murray 
>>> Kucherawy for reviews and feedback on this document.
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Alexey
>>>
>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of 
>>>>> the online
>>>>> Style Guide 
>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
>>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but 
>>>>> this should
>>>>> still be reviewed as a best practice.
>>>>>
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> RFC Editor
>>> On May 15, 2023, at 5:52 AM, Ken Murchison 
>>> <murch=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I approve of the current editorial changes made by the editors.  
>>> Answers to outstanding questions are inline below.
>>>
>>> On 5/13/23 2:27 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> Authors,
>>>>
>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as 
>>>> necessary)
>>>> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>>
>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] The registration policy for the Sieve Actions 
>>>> Registry is
>>>> Expert Review, which we do not believe requires an IETF Stream RFC.
>>>> Therefore, we have removed "IETF Stream" from the the following. 
>>>> Please let
>>>> us know if any corrections are needed.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, please consider whether "vendor specific actions" 
>>>> should be
>>>> "vendor-specific documentation" (or similar) since "actions" has a 
>>>> specific
>>>> meaning in this document.
>>>>
>>>> Original:
>>>> Registration
>>>> of both actions specified in IETF Stream RFCs and vendor specific
>>>> actions is allowed and encouraged.
>>>> -->
>>> I would be fine with this changes, but will defer to Alexey on the 
>>> final determination.
>>>
>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Should the template be formatted more like a blank
>>>> template readers can use for future registrations? For example:
>>>>
>>>> Name: name of the action
>>>> Description: short description
>>>> References: one or more documents describing the action and
>>>> any significant updates to its definition (this field
>>>> is required for actions described in RFCs and is optional
>>>> otherwise).
>>>> Capabilities: Interactions with other Sieve actions (as described in
>>>> Section 2.10.1 of [RFC5228]), if any.
>>>> Action Interactions: ...
>>>> Cancels Implicit Keep? ...
>>>> Can Use With IMAP Events? ...
>>>> Comments: ...
>>>> -->
>>> Yes, I think an empty template would be preferable.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] We added an informative reference to RFC 8126 to 
>>>> help the
>>>> user understand Expert Review and designated expert. Please let us 
>>>> know if
>>>> you have any objections.
>>>>
>>>> Original:
>>>> Registration procedure for this registry is Expert Review.
>>>>
>>>> Current:
>>>> The registration procedure for this registry is Expert Review 
>>>> [RFC8126].
>>>> -->
>>> No objection to adding a reference to RFC 9126.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] "err on the side of registering" is a bit awkward. 
>>>> May we
>>>> update the text as follows?
>>>>
>>>> Original:
>>>> The Designated
>>>> Expert can’t reject a registration based on personal dislike of the
>>>> document defining an action and should always err on the side of
>>>> registering, even if documentation is not complete.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested:
>>>> The designated
>>>> expert can’t reject a registration because of a personal dislike 
>>>> for the
>>>> document defining an action and should always err on the side of 
>>>> approving
>>>> the registration, even if documentation is not complete.
>>>> -->
>>> The suggested text looks good to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we suggest the following update.
>>>>
>>>> Original:
>>>> Addition of a new reference to an existing registration or change to
>>>> the description field goes through the same registration procedure as
>>>> a new registration.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested:
>>>> The same registration procedure is used to add a new reference
>>>> or to change the description field of an existing registration.
>>>> -->
>>> The suggested text looks good to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] The table extends well beyond the 69 characters per 
>>>> line
>>>> limitation. We are discussing any possible options within our team. 
>>>> However,
>>>> do you have any suggestions for trimming it down? We are getting 
>>>> warnings
>>>> like the following:
>>>>
>>>> rfc9122.xml(195): Warning: Total table width (84) exceeds available 
>>>> width (69)
>>>> rfc9122.xml(195): Warning: Too long line found (L133), 15 
>>>> characters longer than 72 characters:
>>>> +============+=============+==========+==============+============+========+=======+ 
>>>>
>>>> rfc9122.xml(195): Warning: Too long line found (L134), 15 
>>>> characters longer than 72 characters:
>>>> |Name |Description |References|Capabilities |Action |Cancels |Can Use|
>>>> rfc9122.xml(195): Warning: Too long line found (L135), 15 
>>>> characters longer than 72 characters:
>>>> ...
>>>> -->
>>> I would have 3 possible suggestions which could be used 
>>> independently or in concert:
>>>      • Remove the Capabilities column, as its contents can be 
>>> inferred from the References column
>>>      • Split the table into two: one for actions that can be used 
>>> with IMAP Events and one for those that can not.
>>>      • Change the Action Interactions column to just be a reference 
>>> to numbered footnotes as most of the text is used multiple         
>>> times:
>>>      • All subsequent tests and actions apply to the altered message
>>>      • All subsequent tests and actions, except "redirect" apply to 
>>> the altered message
>>>      • Incompatible with "vacation" action. Typically is not 
>>> permitted with actions that cause mail delivery, such as "keep", 
>>> "fileinto", and "redirect".
>>>      • Use of :copy suppresses cancelation of implicit keep
>>>      • Incompatible with "reject" and "ereject" actions.
>>>>
>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] The Acknowledgements currently says "TBD." Please 
>>>> let us
>>>> know if you'd like to update the text or if if should be removed 
>>>> from the
>>>> document.
>>>> -->
>>> I'll leave this for Alexey.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of 
>>>> the online
>>>> Style Guide 
>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>>>>
>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this 
>>>> should
>>>> still be reviewed as a best practice.
>>>>
>>>> -->
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 12, 2023, at 11:17 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>
>>>> Updated 2023/05/12
>>>>
>>>> RFC Author(s):
>>>> --------------
>>>>
>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>>>
>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
>>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
>>>>
>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
>>>> your approval.
>>>>
>>>> Planning your review
>>>> ---------------------
>>>>
>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>>>
>>>> * RFC Editor questions
>>>>
>>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
>>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
>>>> follows:
>>>>
>>>> <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>>>
>>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>>>
>>>> * Changes submitted by coauthors
>>>>
>>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>>>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>>>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>>>
>>>> * Content
>>>>
>>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
>>>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
>>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>>>> - contact information
>>>> - references
>>>>
>>>> * Copyright notices and legends
>>>>
>>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>>>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
>>>>
>>>> * Semantic markup
>>>>
>>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
>>>> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
>>>> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
>>>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
>>>>
>>>> * Formatted output
>>>>
>>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
>>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
>>>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Submitting changes
>>>> ------------------
>>>>
>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
>>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
>>>> include:
>>>>
>>>> * your coauthors
>>>>
>>>> * [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>>>>
>>>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
>>>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
>>>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>>>>
>>>> * [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list
>>>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
>>>> list:
>>>>
>>>> * More info:
>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * The archive itself:
>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>>>>
>>>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
>>>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>>>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
>>>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
>>>> [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and
>>>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>>>>
>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>>>>
>>>> An update to the provided XML file
>>>> — OR —
>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>>>>
>>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>>>>
>>>> OLD:
>>>> old text
>>>>
>>>> NEW:
>>>> new text
>>>>
>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
>>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>>>
>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that 
>>>> seem
>>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of 
>>>> text,
>>>> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be 
>>>> found in
>>>> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream 
>>>> manager.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Approving for publication
>>>> --------------------------
>>>>
>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email 
>>>> stating
>>>> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
>>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Files
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> The files are available here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122.xml
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122.pdf
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122.txt
>>>>
>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122-diff.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>>
>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122-xmldiff1.html
>>>>
>>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
>>>> diff files of the XML.
>>>>
>>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122.original.v2v3.xml
>>>>
>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>>>> only:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122.form.xml
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tracking progress
>>>> -----------------
>>>>
>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9122
>>>>
>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>
>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> RFC9122 (draft-ietf-extra-sieve-action-registry-06)
>>>>
>>>> Title : IANA registry for Sieve actions
>>>> Author(s) : A. Melnikov, K. Murchison
>>>> WG Chair(s) : Jiankang Yao, Bron Gondwana
>>>>
>>>> Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Kenneth Murchison
>>> Senior Software Developer
>>> Fastmail US LLC

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Senior Software Developer
Fastmail US LLC