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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

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:
>
>      1. All subsequent tests and actions apply to the altered message
>      2. All subsequent tests and actions, except "redirect" apply to
>         the altered message
>      3. Incompatible with "vacation" action. Typically is not
>         permitted with actions that cause mail delivery, such as
>         "keep", "fileinto", and "redirect".
>      4. Use of :copy suppresses cancelation of implicit keep
>      5. 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 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