Skip to main content

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).