Hi Ines,
Thanks for the detailed review. I used you input to produce draft -18.
Comments inline.
On 2/2/24 3:42 PM, Ines Robles via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.
Document: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-17
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 2024-02-02
IETF LC End Date: 2024-02-01
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary:
The document specifies a data model for managing Sieve scripts using JMAP, a
protocol for synchronizing data such as email between clients and servers. The
model also includes details about server capabilities, script properties,
activation, and validation processes. The document is well written. I have
minor comments/questions below.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
1- Section 1: "...however the functionality offered over the two protocols may
differ"
It would be nice to clarify How the protocols may differ, for example, what
about: "While both JMAP and ManageSieve provide mechanisms for managing Sieve
scripts on a server, the range of features and operations available may vary
between the two protocols. This could affect how scripts are created, edited,
or executed, depending on which protocol is used." or something like that. What
do you think?
I've removed the sentence about differing functionality, and broken out
a separate section discussing of the only functional difference between
the two protocols.
2- Section 1.3.1: "This represents support..." --> Perhaps: "The
urn:ietf:params:jmap:sieve capability object represents support..." ?
Done.
3- Section 2.2: "...This method provides similar functionality to the
PUTSCRIPT, DELETESCRIPT, RENAMESCRIPT, and SETACTIVE commands in [RFC5804]."
It would be nice to clarify a bit in which aspects are similar/dissimilar, for
example, what about: "This method provides similar functionality to the
PUTSCRIPT, DELETESCRIPT, RENAMESCRIPT, and SETACTIVE commands in [RFC5804].
Similar functionality here means that, though the protocols differ, the JMAP
method achieves the same end goals (e.g. managing Sieve scripts by allowing
their creation, deletion, renaming, and activation)" Is this correct? What do
you think?
I've changed all instances of "similar functionality" to "equivalent
functionality" which I believe is more accurate and doesn't require
having to explain any differences.
--
Kenneth Murchison
Senior Software Developer
Fastmail US LLC
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
