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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

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