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

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

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

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