Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-freed-sieve-date-index-11

Hi,

Your response resolves all of my comments. Details inline.

Thanks!

Ben.

On May 24, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Ned Freed wrote:

>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
>> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>
>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>> you may receive.
>
>> Document: draft-freed-sieve-date-index-11
>> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
>> Review Date:  2008-05-23
>> IETF LC End Date: 2008-05-28
>> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
>
>> Summary:
>
>> This document is basically ready for publication as a draft standard.
>> I have a few minor comments which I consider optional to address.
>
>> Comments:
>
>> Section 4:
>
>> Does it make sense to add a reference for ":is" and "i;ascii- 
>> casemap"?
>
> No. These are both core Sieve items defined in the Sieve base  
> specification.
> Anyone with enough familiarity with Sieve to actually make use of this
> specification either as an implementor or user will necessarily know  
> what these
> are.

Okay

>
>
>> Can you mention the reason that the date test can only apply to one
>> header field at a time?
>
> Date-time values specify a point in time. When you test one you're  
> looking to
> see if it meets certain criteria: Before a given time, after a given  
> time, or
> within some interval. The results become ambiguous the minute you  
> allow the
> test to consider multiple dates - someimtes you'd want it to succeed  
> only if
> all the dates passed the test, other times if any passed - so the  
> test is
> constructed so only a single date is selected.
>
> I'm a long way from convinced such a longwinded explanation is worth  
> adding,
> however. Instead I'll just put in a point about this limit keeping  
> the meaning
> of the test simple and obvious.
>

I think that's good enough, thanks.

>> Last paragraph, last sentence: "... the last one that appears should
>> be used."
>
>> Is that a normative SHOULD?
>
> Sure, why not?
>
>> Section 4.1, time-zone syntax:
>
>> I assume the 4 digits are hhmm, as mentioned later in the discussion
>> of default time zone. It might help to explicitly state that in this
>> section.
>
> AFAIK there is no zone offset defined anywhere in email that works  
> any other
> way, but adding an explanation of it can't hurt.
>
>> Section 6.1, section title:
>
>> Section title is "Examples", but I only see one example :-)
>
> Fixed.
>
> 				Ned

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf