Thank you Kenneth for addressing my comments. The changes are Ok for me.
Best Regards,
Ines.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 6:58 PM Ken Murchison <murch@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
