IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Extra] I-D Action: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-05.txt

"Bron Gondwana" <brong@fastmailteam.com> Mon, 01 October 2018 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <brong@fastmailteam.com>
X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F1F0130DFA for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 06:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.982
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.982 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HEADER_CTYPE_ONLY=0.717, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmailteam.com header.b=eVNOLlay; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=A46gfycp
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wfWYD1ysZeCu for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B01F130DDC for <extra@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275FC21F73 for <extra@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 09:54:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap22 ([10.202.2.72]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 01 Oct 2018 09:54:45 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=2xCQPgmIL6wy8QBE7ifk2zSYbjWkoGl/8GAlwNkgY GM=; b=eVNOLlay5EFHdgfALdAkKnRv7Bj1VCJr6nB8q40zB8wx8MugItZAAxtpZ qHxDJyqtB393Jqem5Poy+cVvjF8u8qQwl1DuGE/NTbi9wb5R08qs6L0e5ecpPF66 0TI5lCH41JS+wgiyJEHUSIcMU3+LKTi0/0qgK+hPgOAYVUkCCerN4cO9FYn1MBNu 3bHet6cfJpCBVOmjh6IeXdKQxqBGR+6SBU9aDVBlv0tYdPkDsNBQMBB9MWZPOJ7A 3hCudCcaZD0Wx4F3M+dspEF/rhLw13UFhEiRMRTg5wIJJ4tmooEto6nLXGq+jCro bRhFAcFQ8o+bXOthl8nDfsTAiDezw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=2xCQPgmIL6wy8QBE7ifk2zSYbjWkoGl/8GAlwNkgY GM=; b=A46gfycpKpbC7Qa39uINIXDXx0x5YPGDdsZaTUx3SMiq5qLmO9doFc6Tb pxrVvndha0NZwgwFNd0EUfECDgBidfH/Wr1Uc7gj65Ps7WA4HbuQR+vjSGX9MmvJ dExq0naLOXGanWHxqdrBQz2CmCxkaDN75bCeqQ9jUxZQdEuDDtDfDYNKGvJCNi3i AY69kYs5G2e3nuCJl6O/cEVyeLvcEM7LLOIoUluO/j5rFkyfXsp8JY8w5c3Wey8o FWQpa1W0kM1Ij1RQVaKWbzfr6/WZsnBwHY8rJsNyBmwa9p0iG43r/HCyb0iVzeNq a0HMXsk/W35KoHW+DUyNdsf1KvZhA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:JCeyW0nHOlllXrflahCiiS7iK1KWZJjk8-t9RqkO2eGp2hhlCB_Zhg>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:JCeyW3kLDm0sIisnP2_xpnpVlGvyxYw15xJEc_i8H5mbRF8gL0RU0A> <xmx:JCeyW02HdaSDYpV_sVP4G7tztyArA7l02SkPlFmQIEzVFUzvRfd-3Q> <xmx:JCeyW3vIZ8FoWK0tu2SoJSSTs1dGeQpMWdR6kMk7BUuIXdyrshmRBQ> <xmx:JCeyWxW09CyH1ukkpZN3zOuHHuJw83-eqcHeZz8zSu6yvIK3Js7SRw> <xmx:JCeyWxW2JsxfZkIVRomUElSVm7pHU8xO765WjGTvwTDfoVBv6_u8dg> <xmx:JSeyW0rPXFCr-z7oyYsnVnrlx4gUnRa-rHrnlRc8tmLfTCnfHxeD2g>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id C531DE688; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 09:54:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <d5e1159b-b765-47ce-bef3-aaffaf355b8a@sloti22d1t06>
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.5-543-gf673e33-fmstable-20181001v1
X-Me-Personality: 56629417
In-Reply-To: <adf4ca0c-00e6-f795-d6e8-2e739e3d1535@isode.com>
References: <153662523769.16137.7151778749740462039@ietfa.amsl.com> <2018092911370230091886@cnnic.cn> <adf4ca0c-00e6-f795-d6e8-2e739e3d1535@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 09:54:43 -0400
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
To: extra@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="ded5f0901f8441e090070b7bc5ede4a1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/_rr9FRrJCbIH__Os9awmdQS3qvo>
Subject: Re: [Extra] I-D Action: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-05.txt
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 13:54:49 -0000

Ken is on holiday for a couple of days, so I expect we'll go through this when he's back. 
 
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018, at 23:45, Alexey Melnikov wrote: 
> On 29/09/2018 04:38, Jiankang Yao wrote: 

>> Dear authors, 
>>   
>>  I am preparing for the shepherd write-up. 
>>   
>>  Could you kindly address the following issues and update a new version? Thanks.  
>>   
>>  https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-05.txt 
>>   
>>   
>>   ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
     being 2 characters in excess of 72.

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5435, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5230, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
> Right, the Abstract should have a sentence or 2 about RFCs updated, ideally listing what was updated. This should enable readers to decide whether they need to read the rest of the document.  
>   
>   
>>   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 524

  == Missing Reference: 'FCC' is mentioned on line 196, but not defined

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 526

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 528

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line 530
> I don't think anything needs to be done about the above, these are just false warnings from the ID-nits. 

>  

>  
>>   == Unused Reference: 'RFC5321' is defined on line 495, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
> I think this can be removed. 
>   
>>   == Unused Reference: 'RFC5429' is defined on line 499, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
> This is related to ereject. If it stays, the document needs to explain interactions (or lack thereof) with ereject. 
>   
>>   ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4234 (Obsoleted by RFC 5234)
> This should be updated. 
>   
>   
> _______________________________________________ 
> Extra mailing list 
> Extra@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra 
>  
 
-- 
 Bron Gondwana, CEO, FastMail Pty Ltd 
 brong@fastmailteam.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email