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

[Ken Murchison <[e-mail]>]

Seeing Magnus' message had me go back and look at the grammar in -06 and 
-07.

In both, the extension to FCC in Section 5 should be something like:

FCC-OPTS /= ":mailboxid" string
                       ; MUST NOT appear with the :specialuse option


As far as the other formal syntax items that were removed (tag and 
test), I don't think extending them as they were was useful and possibly 
incorrect?  Neither grammar element is being extended.  Both the 
mailboxidexists test and the :mailboxid tag fall legally into the 
existing RFC 5228 grammar elements.  Most (all?) Sieve extensions have 
extended the syntax of specific commands, not the formal grammar (e.g., 
the Copy extension extended 'fileinto' directly, not 'command')


On 3/9/21 5:46 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Haven’t seen an answer to my question if removing the formal syntax 
> really was an appropriate resolution of my discuss. I have removed my 
> discuss as I am stepping down. I think the responsible AD should take 
> a serious consideration of this before they approve the document.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> *From:*iesg <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Magnus Westerlund
> *Sent:* den 16 februari 2021 15:20
> *To:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on 
> draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: (with DISCUSS)
>
> Hi,
>
> I was unfortunately sick last week so I didn’t managed to respond 
> before you done the work.
>
> From my perspective adding the references would have been better as 
> formal syntax if correct are very useful. I don’t know enough about 
> sieve specifications to know if removing the formal language here is 
> good enough or making the specification a bit worse. My discuss was 
> only to ensure things was clear, and though some small wording 
> additions and correct references would have resolved things.
>
> WG and Barry, what are your opinion on this change?
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> *From:*Bron Gondwana <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Sent:* den 8 februari 2021 05:30
> *To:* Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; The IESG <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc:* [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; Jiankang Yao <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Subject:* Re: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on 
> draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: (with DISCUSS)
>
> 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
>     <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/
>     <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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>