Sieve Email Filtering: Date and Index Extensions
draft-freed-sieve-date-index-12

[Ballot comment]
A few issues I noticed while reviewing this:

Section 4.1:

I think it would be more accurate to say "zone offset" rather than zone.  I observe you use a syntax different from time-numoffset in RFC 3339,
but that allows your zone offsets to work with i;ascii-numeric so
that's fine.  Just want to verify it's an intentional difference.  It
might be worth mentioning the ":zone" syntax is different from the
syntax used in "iso8601".

Section 4.2:

Your "weekday" scheme is different from the weekday scheme in ISO 8601
which uses 1 for Monday and 7 for Sunday.  Is there a reason for the
difference?  It's probably too late to change anyway since there are
implementations of this.  Perhaps it would be good just to mention the
difference.

Section 4.3:

>  "year", "month", "day", "date", "hour", "minute", "second" and
>  "weekday" all use fixed-width string representations of integers, and
>  can therefore be compared with "i;octet", "i;ascii-casemap", and
>  "i;ascii-numeric" with equivalent results.

This is not true for the "date" date-part.  The "i;ascii-numeric"
collation is probably not useful for that one (it would only be useful
for a date format that omitted the delimiters).

[Ballot discuss]
Section 4 defines the syntax as:

Usage: date [<":zone" > / ":originalzone"]
            [COMPARATOR] [MATCH-TYPE]
             

and then later Section 4.4 gives an example:

date :value "ge" :originalzone "date" "hour" "09",

Here MATCH-TYPE appears *before* the zone definition. This seems
to be the wrong order according to the syntax. Perhaps one of the
following is true:

1) The syntax is wrong
2) The example is wrong
3) SIEVE allows arguments to appear in any order, but this document
  does not mention this fact
4) Something else that I missed

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Sieve Extensions" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions

Capability name: date
Description: The "date" extension gives Sieve the ability to test date
and time values.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-date-index-11]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list


Capability name: index
Description: The "index" extension provides a means to limit header
and address tests to specific instances when more than one field of
a given type is present.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-date-index-11]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this
document.

=========================
(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Alexey Melnikov  is the document shepherd for
this document. The document is ready for publication.

(1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?

This document was reviewed by several active and experienced Sieve WG
members. So there are no concerns about the depth of the reviews.

(1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

(1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
        and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
        or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the  document, or
        has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
        event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
        concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this  document
        been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

No specific concerns. No IPR disclosure was filed for this document.

(1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it?

Even though this document is an individual submission, it was
extensively reviewed on the Sieve mailing list.
Note that the Sieve WG is in the process of rechartering and will be
willing to take this document as a WG document. However the document is ready for publication so the shepherd and the author don't think that it is worth delaying publication of this document until the Sieve WG recharters.

(1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated  extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
        entered into the ID Tracker.)
No.

(1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
        http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
        http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the  document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

IDnits 2.08.04 was used to verify the document. It reports some missing
references, which are not references, but ABNF-like productions (i.e. IDnits warnings are incorrect).

(1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative?  Are there normative references to documents  that
        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
        state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
        strategy for their completion?  Are there normative  references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes, references are properly split. There are no downward normative
references.

(1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

IANA considerations section exists and is clearly defined. It contains
registration of 2 Sieve extensions defined in the draft.

(1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?

The document doesn't have any ABNF, MIB, etc.

(1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Write-Up?  Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:

        Technical Summary
          Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
          and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
          an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
          or introduction.

This document describes the "date" and "index" extensions to the
Sieve email filtering language.  The "date" extension gives Sieve the
ability to test date and time values in various ways.  The "index"
extension provides a means to limit header and address tests to
specific instances of header fields when header fields are repeated.

This document is targeted for Proposed Standard.

        Working Group Summary
          Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
          example, was there controversy about particular points or
          were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
          rough?

This is an individual submission. It was informally last called in the Sieve WG and there was strong support for publishing the document.

        Document Quality
          Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
          significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
          implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
          merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
          e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
          conclusion that the document had no substantive  issues?  If
          there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
          what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media  Type
          review, on what date was the request posted?

There is at least 2 server implementations (Sun, Oryx) of this document. At least 2 more implementors (Isode, libsieve) are interested in implementing it.

At least 4 people have reviewed the document. Posted comments were
addressed in the latest revision.

        Personnel
          Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is  the
          Responsible Area Director?

Alexey Melnikov  is the document shepherd for
this document.