Re: [Extra] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-08

[Dan Romascanu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ned,

Thanks for your answer. I am leaving to the OPS ADs the judgment about how
important the clarification text would be. The OPS-DIR reviews are written
to help them in their evaluaton tasks.

Regards,

Dan


On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 6:13 PM Ned Freed <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > Thanks for the answer. It helps indeed. It would help better if this is
> > documented with one paragraph in the text of the document. While
> developers
> > know well the details, users and operators may be less familiar with
> these.
>
> I'm going to push back on this a bit. It's effectively axiomatic that in
> order
> to understand a protocol extension you first need to understand the
> protocol
> and it's extension mechanism. Having every extension reiterate a subset of
> how
> the extension mechanism works seems pointless at best and more likely
> counterproductive - covering only a subset of the mechanism, which is
> all you're be able to do without repeating a significant amount of
> RFC 5228 will give the (incorrect) impression that it's all you need to
> know.
>
> Now, it would be one thing if there was a section in RFC 5228 that
> describes the extension mechanism - if that were the case we could
> just reference it. But for better or worse RFC 5228 isn't constructed that
> way. Perhaps more than any other protocol, Sieve is designed to be extended
> easily, and the discussion of how that works appears throughout the
> document.
>
> Finally, if we're going to talk about implementation and use issues in
> regards
> to this extension - and I'm not saying we should - such text would be
> better
> spent on discussing the interplay between this extension and where sieves
> are
> evaluated.
>
>                                 Ned
>