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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lynne,

I finally got around to checking the last version. Answering your 
questions below:

On 20/05/2023 00:07, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
> Hi, Alexey.
>
> We have updated this document per your note below and have some follow-up questions/notes for you.
>
> We see that this document has a mix of US and UK spellings (initialize (US), cancelation (US), behaviours (UK).  Would you prefer US or UK spelling for this document?
US is fine. (Or whichever is less work :-))
> = = = = =
>
> Please note that per the spacing style used in Sections 7.4 and 7.5 of RFC 6785, we have used "compact" vertical spacing for the existing "template" list in Section 2.1, as well as the lists in Section 2.2 that now replace the table.  Please review, and let us know if you prefer the "normal" vertical spacing (i.e., one vertical space between each entry); we realize that the "normal" spacing might make it easier to read the multi-line entries.
>
> Also, rather than have blank entries, we used "N/A" and added text re. same to the paragraph that precedes the registrations.
I just checked the old table against the new text and I believe they match.
> Additionally, we have flagged an update for IANA, to be made just prior to publication, re. inconsistent punctuation in three of the "Action Interactions" column entries.  Please see our note on<https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9122>, and let us know if you prefer to add periods at the end of most of the entries instead of removing them from three entries.
Either way is fine, whatever is less work.
> = = = = =
>
> As we noticed the following after looking carefully at the registration entries --
> (1) Would you like "File message" in the "keep" registration to be "File the message"?
Sure.
> (2) Could the three "Incompatible with ..." phrases somehow be made complete sentences, per the other "Action Interactions" entries?
Yes. Just change them to "This action is incompatible with ..."
> (3) Could "Vacation autoresponder" in the "vacation" entry be made a complete sentence, per the rest of the "Description" entries (perhaps "Implement a vacation autoresponder" per Section 4 of RFC 5230)?

"Implement a vacation autoresponder" is fine with me.

Best Regards,

Alexey

> If yes, we will ask IANA to make corresponding updates as appropriate.
>
> The latest files are posted here:
>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122.txt
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122.pdf
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122.html
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122.xml
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122-diff.html
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122-rfcdiff.html
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122-auth48diff.html
>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122-xmldiff1.html
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9122-xmldiff2.html
>
> Unfortunately, because the changes to Section 2.2 are extensive, there isn't an easy way to view them.
>
> Please review all of our updates to Section 2.2 carefully, and let us know if anything is incorrect.
>
> Thank you!
>
> RFC Editor/lb
>
>> On May 17, 2023, at 9:05 AM, Alexey Melnikov<[e-mail]>  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