Shepherd writeup

Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-03
1. This document is being requested as a Proposed Standard because it
adds new capabilities to existing Standards Track document(RFC 5228).
The request type is indicated in the title page header.
Technical Summary
   The OBJECTID capability of the IMAP protocol (RFC8474) allows clients
   to identify mailboxes by a unique identifier which survives rename.
   This document extends the Sieve mail filtering language (RFC5228) to
   allow using that same unique identifier as a target for fileinto
   rules, and for testing the existance of mailboxes.
Working Group Summary 
  Before being a WG draft, the WG members gave some significant comments.
  All identified issues were reflected in the new version of the draft. 
  The EXTRA WG meeting in IETF 108 had detailed discussion about this draft
  and decided to move this document to WGLC.
  Some significant experts have looked throught this document in detail. It passed WGLC.
  Some small issues found in WGLC has been reflected in the new version of the draft. 
Document Quality
  The document is in good shape and is ready to be published.
  Fastmail has implemented it, and have been using it in production for about a year.
  It's in the open source Cyrus IMAP server.
  All important comments and suggestions based on WG's discussion have been updated
  into the new version of this document. 
  A few important experts in the WG think that this document is ready to be published.
  Document Shepherd - Jiankang Yao (EXTRA co-chair)
  Responsible Area Director -  Barry Leiba
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
very self-contained.
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 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:

if you have code sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>'  and  '<CODE ENDS>' 


     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 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 RFC5228. RFC5228 has been listed on the title page header, indicated in the abstract. 

In the introduction, there has only one sentence which mentions
 " [RFC5228] Sieve rules are sometimes created using graphical
   interfaces which allow users to select the mailbox to be used as a
   target for a rule." 
The introduction does not directly say " this document updates RFC5228".
17. IANA are requested to add a capability to the sieve-extensions registry:

   Subject: Registration of new Sieve extension

   Capability name: mailboxid
   Description: adds a test for checking mailbox existence by objectid,
                and new optional arguments to fileinto and :fcc which
                allow selecting the destination mailbox by objectid.
   RFC number: this RFC
   Contact address: The EXTRA discussion list <>  
18. None of the IANA registries mentioned require Expert Review.
19. Have checked the formal language. Find some issues in section "Formal Syntax" of version 2 of this draft and ask the author to update it to version 3.

20. Find no issues here.