[Extra] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-08: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-08: No Objection

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-fcc/



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

Rich version of this review at:
https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3898



IMPORTANT
S 3.
>      copy of the generated message into the mailbox provided in the
>      subsequent argument.  The syntax and semantics of the mailbox
>      argument MUST match those of the mailbox argument to the "fileinto"
>      action specified in Section 4.1 of [RFC5228].  If the specified
>      mailbox doesn't exist, the implementation MUST file the message into
>      the user's main mailbox (e.g.  IMAP "INBOX").

This seems to sort of conflict with S 3.1.1. I assume that the logic
is: if (!exists && :create) { try_to_create() }; if (!exists) {
file_in_inbox()} else { file_in_fcc_mailbox()}, but this text isn't
celar.

COMMENTS
S 1.
>   
>      The capability string associated with this extension is "fcc".
>   
>      Each action that generates additional messages will need to specify
>      how it interfacts with :fcc.  This document specifies the interaction
>      of :fcc with the Vacation [RFC5230] and Notify [RFC5435] extensions.

Are these the only such actions?