Thanks Pete, fair enough - I can see how a semantically pointless example is a problem. I'll update that in my copy and wait for any other review changes before uploading again.
And yeah - if the latest mmark is causing artifacts I'll see what I can do about those. I admit I didn't read through the whole thing in detail again after making the last updates.
Cheers,
Bron
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020, at 17:05, Pete Resnick via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Pete ResnickReview result: Ready with IssuesI am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General AreaReview Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processedby the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments justlike any other last call comments.For more information, please see the FAQ atDocument: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-05Reviewer: Pete ResnickReview Date: 2020-11-30IETF LC End Date: 2020-12-02IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechatSummary: Looking good. Just one minor issue and one nit.Major issues:None.Minor issues:Section 4 says:If there is no such mailbox, the "fileinto" action proceeds as itwould without the ":mailboxid" argument.But the in the example in section 6, it shows:if mailboxidexists "F6352ae03-b7f5-463c-896f-d8b48ee3" {fileinto :mailboxid "F6352ae03-b7f5-463c-896f-d8b48ee3""INBOX.harassment";} else {fileinto "INBOX.harassment";}That appears correct, but as far as I can tell, it is semantically identical to:fileinto :mailboxid "F6352ae03-b7f5-463c-896f-d8b48ee3""INBOX.harassment";That is, the rule in section 4 means that fileinto already does an implicitexistence check and only uses the named mailbox if the one specified by themailboxid doesn't exist. It's not that the example is particularly a problem,but it did confuse me for a few minutes while I tried to figure out what it wastrying to do. Perhaps if the example was:if mailboxidexists "F6352ae03-b7f5-463c-896f-d8b48ee3" {fileinto :mailboxid "F6352ae03-b7f5-463c-896f-d8b48ee3""this.name.will.never.be.used";} else {fileinto "INBOX.harassment";}or an example that did something other than "fileinto" it would have made a bitmore sense. Certainly not absolutely necessary to fix, but a change mightimprove understanding.Nits/editorial comments:In sections 4.1 and 4.2, you have references that appear as "[!@RFC5490]" and"[!@RFC5879]". I assume that's some sort of markdown or other formatting toolmistake.
--
Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call