Re: [Extra] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: (with DISCUSS)

[Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020, at 01:22, Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker wrote:
> Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid/
> 

Hi Magnus,

Sorry for the lack of response on this - I missed it somehow at the time!

> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> First part is a formality discuss that likely is fairly easy to resolve
> 
> So this document uses formal syntax, however it does not explicitly reference
> which. So I noticed RFC 5228 that do reference RFC 4234 which is now obsolete,
> and the current in force version of ABNF is RFC 5234. Also as no WSP are
> included in the rules, this document appears to use ABNF to express RFC 5228
> grammar and not parsing syntax. So please clarify prior to the usages what the
> formal language is and what it represents.
> 
> So this needs to be done prior to Section 5. But, can you please check that you
> actually have the same level of  formal syntax in Section 5 that goes through
> RFC 8580 as what is in Section 8. Otherwise please clarify both.

I'm happy to drop the formal language section entirely.  I just checked RFC8579 which describes a very similar extension and it has no formal ABNF section.  Would you be satisfied with having the ABNF dropped entirely and using prose and descriptions similar to what's in RFC8579?

> Secondly, I do consider the defining text first paragraph of in Section 4.1 so
> hard to interpret that it must be fixed prior to publication. So although you
> already are going to address it based on discussion of Martin Duke's comment, I
> want to hold a discuss on this.

I will wordsmith that and post a new draft.

Thanks,

Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [e-mail]