[Extra] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 10 January 2019 02:49 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use@ietf.org, Jiankang Yao <yaojk@cnnic.cn>, extra-chairs@ietf.org, yaojk@cnnic.cn, extra@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154708857484.5207.16946770094550744825.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 18:49:34 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/YQD9LMLgNbsTdBW35-kXqG_lwhA>
Subject: [Extra] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04: Yes

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-special-use/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks to everyone who worked on this document. I have two minor suggestions for
improvement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§1:

>  It also adds
>  the ability to file messages into an anonymous personal mailbox that
>  has a particular special-use attribute assigned using a ":specialuse"
>  argument for the "fileinto" command [SIEVE].

I was perplexed by the use of "anonymous" (here and elsewhere in the document),
expecting it to be a term of art defined in some other RFC. I poked around at
the plausible references and didn't find anything.

After reading the rest of the document, I *think* the notion is that you're
talking about a mailbox that is identified by its special-use attribute rather
than its name. If that's the intention, it might be clearer to simply say
"unnamed;" or, barring that, perhaps clarify in the Introduction what is meant
by "anonymous."

(Yes, I get that "unnamed" and "anonymous" are technically synonyms, but
"anonymous" typically is used as a term of art corresponding to personal
anonymity in the context of communications, making its use confusing in this
context without any additional explanation)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2:

>  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>  document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].

Please use RFC 8174 boilerplate.

[Extra] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-siev… Adam Roach
Re: [Extra] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-… Ned Freed
Re: [Extra] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-… Adam Roach
Re: [Extra] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-… Stephan Bosch