Last Call Review of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-action-registry-05
review-ietf-extra-sieve-action-registry-05-artart-lc-yoneya-2023-01-10-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-extra-sieve-action-registry |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
| Deadline | 2022-11-23 | |
| Requested | 2022-11-02 | |
| Authors | Alexey Melnikov , Kenneth Murchison | |
| I-D last updated | 2023-06-27 (Latest revision 2023-03-27) | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart IETF Last Call review of -04
by Joel M. Halpern
(diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -04 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff) Artart IETF Last Call review of -05 by Yoshiro Yoneya (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Yoshiro Yoneya |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-action-registry by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/IZC-lNTGOe7GJMJE2S19n4_Wi4k | |
| Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 06) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2023-01-10 |
review-ietf-extra-sieve-action-registry-05-artart-lc-yoneya-2023-01-10-00
Reviewer: Yoshiro Yoneya Review result: Ready with Nits I am assigned ARTART reviewer for this draft. Summary: This draft is in good shape and almost ready for publication. I found a few nits better to be corrected. Major issues: None. Minor issues: None. Nits: In Section "2.2. Initial Sieve Action Registry": CURRENT Note that when "Action Interactions" cell is empty it means that there is no restriction on use of the corresponding action with any other action, however implementors still need to read the corresponding specification(s) to see if there is are any surprising behaviour. SUGGESTION Note that when "Action Interactions" cell is empty it means that there is no restriction on use of the corresponding action with any other action, however implementors still need to read the corresponding specification(s) to see if there is any surprising behaviour. In Section "4.1. Normative References": RFC2119 and RFC8174 are placed as normative references, but there is no explicit reference to them, and no "Terminology" section also, so those two references seemed to be unneeded (at least, as normative reference).