Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc
1. This document is being requested as a Proposed Standard because it
updates existing Standards Track documents(RFC 5230, RFC 5435).
The request type is indicated in the title page header.
The Sieve Email Filtering Language provides a number of action
commands, some of which can generate additional messages on behalf of
the user. This document defines an extension to such commands to
allow a copy of any generated message to be filed into a target
Working Group Summary
The EXTRA WG meeting in IETF 101 had detailed discussion about this draft.
The authors had updated it accordingly. Before WGLC, several experts reviewed
the draft in detail. All identified issues were reflected in the new version
of the draft. The EXTRA WG meeting in IETF 102 decided to poll list for WGLC
after the new vesion. During WGLC, some minor issues were identified and
fixed in the new version. The WG has looked throught this document in detail.
The document is in good shape and is ready to be published.
One expert has indicated that he has implemented it.
He noted that this was far more difficult to implement than he
expected. Specially, section 4 of the document
records the status of some known implementations.
Document Shepherd - Jiankang Yao (EXTRA co-chair)
Responsible Area Director - Alexey Melnikov
3. The Document Shepherd has read the document through in detail and
think that it is ready to go.
4. There has no concerns.
5. There is no review required for the document by other areas, it's
6. There are no concerns with this document that IESG should be aware of.
7. There have been no IPR disclosures for this spec.
8. There have been no IPR disclosures for this spec.
9. The WG consensus is very solid, while not everybody spoke, it was
clear that the entire group understood and agreed with the idea and
the method chosen.
10. There has been no discontent.
11. The ID nits tool shows the following:
No issues found here.
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 5 comments (--).
12. This document doesn't define anything which needs formal review
outside the working group.
13. All references have been identified as either normative or
14. All normative references are published standards.
15. There are no downward normative references references.
16. This RFC updates RFC5230 and RFC5435.
RFC5230 and RFC5435 have been listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract. In the introduction, there has only one sentence which mentions
" This document also specifies the interaction of :fcc with the Vacation
[RFC5230] and Notify [RFC5435]
but it does not clearly indicates which part of RFC5230 and RFC5435 is updated
by this document. I think that the author might need to clarify it in the
introduction of the future new version.
17. The IANA considerations ask for the following two items to be added to the
IANA is requested to add the new entry spcified in section 6.1 to the "Sieve
Extensions". IANA is requested to add the new entry spcified in section 6.2
to the "Notification-Capability Parameters"
18. None of the IANA registries mentioned require Expert Review.
19. Have run Bill's ABNF Parser for checking of ABNF, and no issue was found.