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

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:31:27PM -0800, Ned Freed wrote:
> > > Benjamin Kaduk 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:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > I'm balloting Yes because this document seems like it is going to do the
> > > right thing in helping to keep sieve up to date with IMAP.  But I do still
> > > have a few comments.
> >
> > > Section 4
> >
> > >                      Implementations SHOULD handle an invalid special-
> > >    use flag in the same way as an invalid mailbox name is handled.  The
> >
> > > (Does "invalid" mean "syntactically invalid" or "nonexistent" or something
> > > else?  Presumably this is just a sieve convention that I've not been
> > > exposed to yet...)
> >
> > Given that the preceeding sentence in the paragraph is "The special-use flag
> > specified with the ":specialuse" argument MUST conform to the "use-attr" syntax
> > described in Section 6 of RFC6154 [SIEVE-MAILBOX]." I think it's actually
> > pretty clear that this is talking about syntax and not something. I suppose
> > changing it to say "syntactically invalid" would not hurt, but I don't really
> > think it's necessary given the context.

> Okay.

> > What actually concerns me more here is the MUST in the first sentence. This use
> > of compliance language strikes me as misplaced. Sieve scripts are specified by
> > users one way or another and say what they say; when we talk about compliance
> > in these documents we're talking about what a Sieve implementation has to do,
> > like the SHOULD in the second sentence, which is actually dealing with the
> > case where the MUST is violated.

> It's probably clearer to say something descriptive like "[...] flag
> specified with the ':specialuse' argument conforms to the 'use-attr' syntax
> described in [...]"

Works for me.

				Ned