Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-08

Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> Wed, 09 January 2019 09:30 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5BF5130DED; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 01:30:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
To: <ops-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: extra@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc.all@ietf.org, dromasca@gmail.com
Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-08
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154702622280.7446.9285138848727921959@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 01:30:22 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hsnaatA_qwFAkg9316vZ21uzJfA>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 09:30:31 -0000

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: Has Issues

The document extends the Sieve Email Filtering Language [RFC5228] by providing
a number of action commands, some of which can generate additional messages of
behalf of the user. It is a clear document, its target being developers and
users of the protocol. I liked the fact that the authors included a
'Compatibility with Other Actions' section that describes the interoperability
with existing deployed versions of the protocol, as well as the inclusion of a
temporary section about Implementation Status. I am missing however some
information about possible impact of the new action commands on deployment and
operations on servers already in operation. I assume that scalability and
compatibility between older and newer versions (including or not the new
defined commands) were assessed, but this is not documented. Some confirmation,
warnings (if any) and useful information that operators should know at
deployment would be useful. I suggest that you consider adding such a paragraph
or short section.