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

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 01 December 2008 11:03 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 7EB9C3A6A4C; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 03:03:29 -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 98B063A6A4C for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 03:03:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.161, 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 fKCf1YI3TKYr for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 03:03:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5583A69D3 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 03:03:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [92.40.71.113] (92.40.71.113.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.71.113]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <STPEeABa-454@rufus.isode.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:03:22 +0000
Message-ID: <4933C455.2020505@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:02:45 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
References: <4932D3D9.2020703@isode.com> <sbn5j4han0b5a4no0u363hnp0o3obru594@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
In-Reply-To: <sbn5j4han0b5a4no0u363hnp0o3obru594@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Bjoern,

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

>* 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].
>  
>
Thanks for spotting that. Fixed.

>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.
>
Yes. I had a note at the top of the ABNF, but I guess it wasn't clear.

>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 / "!" / "$" / "'" / "(" / ")"
>                                   / "*" / "+" / ","
>                                   / ":" / "@"
>
I've deleted uchar, as it wasn't used.

>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've added a note on that.

>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.
>  
>
Sure.

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

>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.
>  
>
Yes, I will fix that.

Thank you for your review,
Alexey

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
Uri-review@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review