Re: [Uri-review] Request to review sieve URI scheme

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Sun, 30 November 2008 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <uri-review-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: uri-review-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-uri-review-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B74D3A6A40; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:33:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E343A6A40 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:33:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GRpuErbzP20f for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:33:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A0ED3A68E7 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:33:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2008 19:33:09 -0000
Received: from dslb-088-075-234-165.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO hive) [88.75.234.165] by mail.gmx.net (mp018) with SMTP; 30 Nov 2008 20:33:09 +0100
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19SS7sZmNhSx+GfNiQL72MljAzXYL22Hqdbpof3tM yawH1FAPWQcQzS
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:33:10 +0100
Message-ID: <sbn5j4han0b5a4no0u363hnp0o3obru594@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <4932D3D9.2020703@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4932D3D9.2020703@isode.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.54
Cc: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request to review sieve URI scheme
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org

* Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>I am finishing draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-02.txt which defines the 
>sieve: URI scheme. So I would like to ask people to review section 3 of 
>the draft.

You have a reference [IMAP4] but it's not part of the References in the
document. I assume this should be [IMAP4rev1].

You should say upfront that `authority`, `unreserved`, etc. are defined
in STD066 and included by reference. Right now you are using authority
without defining it, and repeat the reference multiple times.

There is not much point in having the sub-delims-sh and uchar rules in
the grammar, you could just use

  ochar = <pchar but not ";", "&", or "=">

or the equivalent (I assume)

  ochar = unreserved / pct-encoded / "!" / "$" / "'" / "(" / ")"
                                   / "*" / "+" / ","
                                   / ":" / "@"

That way readers would not have to read through the comments and expand
the rules manually.

The difference between

  sieve://example/script  (owner absent)
  sieve://example//script (owner empty)

should be explicitly called out somewhere. It would be better if this is
done outside the grammar (the semantics of having an empty owner would
also be better specified outside the grammar).

I don't think comments in the grammar are a good place to re-iterate en-
coding requirements. It would be better if you just said once that chars
other than those explicitly allowed above must be utf-8 encoded and %xx-
escaped to be included.

When you point out facts, like that ' ' can only be included in URLs in
its %xx encoded form, do not use RFC 2119 keywords.

In the "URI scheme semantics" it would be good to include some reference
when it refers to "the REFERRAL response code".

As an aside, throughout the document in registration templates, it would
be good to have a space between To: and Subject: headers, and the body.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
Uri-review@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review