Sieve Email Filtering: Extension for Processing Calendar Attachments
draft-ietf-extra-processimip-09
Yes
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Erik Kline
Gunter Van de Velde
Jim Guichard
Orie Steele
Paul Wouters
Roman Danyliw
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Murray Kucherawy
Yes
Deb Cooley
No Objection
Comment
(2024-08-08 for -08)
Sent
Thanks to Dan Harkins for the secdir review. I will reiterate some of Eric V's comments (and one of Dan's): snip.................. Section 4 contains a SHOULD but nothing is said about consequence(s) if the SHOULD is bypassed. The document is great in the specification, but it lacks some explanations sometimes (the "why"). Sections 4.4 to 4.9 contain no BCP 14 language, was it the authors' intent ? snip......................
Erik Kline
No Objection
Gunter Van de Velde
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Orie Steele
No Objection
Paul Wouters
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment
(2024-08-07 for -08)
Not sent
I am seriously not a Sieve person, but this all sounds reasonable, so...
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Comment
(2024-08-08 for -08)
Sent
Thanks for working on this specificaition. I didn't find any transport protocol related issues. I would request to add consequences of "processcalendar" action not removing the alamrs as it says the action SHOULD remove alarms. What are the reasonble exeptions that can waive this ask and what are the potential consequences if this alarms are not removed before applying the action?
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2024-07-09 for -08)
Sent
Thanks for the work done in this document. And thanks to Bron Gondwana for the shepherd's write-up including the consensus *and* the justification of the intended status. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs. "UID" is used by never defined (its meaning is rather obvious but why not being specific ?). Section 4 contains a SHOULD but nothing is said about consequence(s) if the SHOULD is bypassed. The document is great in the specification, but it lacks some explanations sometimes (the "why"). Sections 4.4 to 4.9 contain no BCP 14 language, was it the authors' intent ? Section 5 has a rather marketing term "highly scalable", as this section will be removed before publication, it is OK but still unusual ;-)