Hi Ned,
Thanks for your answer. I am leaving to the OPS ADs the judgment about how important the clarification text would be. The OPS-DIR reviews are written to help them in their evaluaton tasks.
Regards,
Dan
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 6:13 PM Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for the answer. It helps indeed. It would help better if this is
> documented with one paragraph in the text of the document. While developers
> know well the details, users and operators may be less familiar with these.
I'm going to push back on this a bit. It's effectively axiomatic that in order
to understand a protocol extension you first need to understand the protocol
and it's extension mechanism. Having every extension reiterate a subset of how
the extension mechanism works seems pointless at best and more likely
counterproductive - covering only a subset of the mechanism, which is
all you're be able to do without repeating a significant amount of
RFC 5228 will give the (incorrect) impression that it's all you need to know.
Now, it would be one thing if there was a section in RFC 5228 that
describes the extension mechanism - if that were the case we could
just reference it. But for better or worse RFC 5228 isn't constructed that
way. Perhaps more than any other protocol, Sieve is designed to be extended
easily, and the discussion of how that works appears throughout the
document.
Finally, if we're going to talk about implementation and use issues in regards
to this extension - and I'm not saying we should - such text would be better
spent on discussing the interplay between this extension and where sieves are
evaluated.
Ned
