[Jmap] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-20: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-20: No Objection

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jmap-sieve/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Ines Robles for the GENART review.

** Section 1.2.1

      The maximum length, in (UTF-8) octets, allowed for the name of a
      SieveScript.  For compatibility with ManageSieve, this MUST be at
      least 512 (up to 128 Unicode characters).

What’s a “(UTF-8) octet” as opposed to just a “octet”?

** Section 2.1
      For
      compatibility with ManageSieve, servers MUST reject names that
      contain control characters

What is the definition of “control characters”?  Recommend either citing
Section 1.6 of RFC5804 or repeating the guidance here.

** Section 2.4
      If the id is either illegal or nonexistent, it MUST be ignored and
      the currently active SieveScript (if any) will remain as such.

Is an “illegal” id the same as “invalid”?  That might be clearer.

** Section 2.6 and 5.  The SieveScript validation would appear to require the
serve to parse and validate the provided SieveScript.  Section 5 cites the
security considerations of RFC5804 and RFC8620.  The latter has Section 8.4
which discusses the considerations for JSON processing.  Is there an equivalent
for a Sieve script (which is not JSON).