Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sieve-include-
review-ietf-sieve-include-genart-lc-campbell-2012-05-14-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-sieve-include
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-01-03
Requested 2011-12-08
Authors Cyrus Daboo , Aaron Stone
I-D last updated 2012-05-14
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Ben Campbell
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Radia Perlman
Assignment Reviewer Ben Campbell
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-sieve-include-genart-lc-campbell-2012-05-14
Completed 2012-05-14
review-ietf-sieve-include-genart-lc-campbell-2012-05-14-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.

Document: draft-ietf-sieve-include-13
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-12-13
IETF LC End Date: 2011-12-15

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

-- section 3.1, paragraph 4: "Implementations MUST NOT generate errors for
recursive inclusions at upload time, as this would force an upload ordering
requirement upon script authors / generators.  However, if an active script is
replaced with a faulty script and would remain the active script, an error MUST
be generated and the upload MUST fail."

These two statements seem contradictory on a quick reading.  In particular, how
can the latter assertion avoid an upload ordering requirement? Or do you mean
faulty in some way other than being recursive?

-- section 3.4.1, paragraph 5: "If a "global" command is given the name of a
variable that has previously been defined in the immediate script with "set",
an error MUST be generated either when the script is uploaded or at execution
time."

Does this conflict with the previous statement that it is okay for a global and
a private variable to have the same name?

-- section 3.4.2:

Why do you need two ways to accomplish the same thing?

Does the global namespace have the same "requires" requirement as the global
command?

-- section 4.2, paragraph 2:

Can you elaborate on what permissions are proper? Is it different for an
included script than for any other script?

-- section 4.2, paragraph 3:

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "safe for a storage system"?

Nits/editorial comments:

-- section 3.1, paragraph 4: "authors / generators"

s/ "authors / generators " / "authors and generators"

-- section 3.2, paragraph 9 (Top of page 6): "
The included script MUST be a valid Sieve script.  Each script MUST
   have its own "require" statements for all optional capabilities used
   by that script. "

Who do these normative statements apply to? As worded, it sounds like they
apply to the user. It might be better to say that the implementation MUST
validate that…

-- section 3.4.2, paragraph 3: "Variables declared global and variables
accessed via the global namespace MUST be one and the same."

Plurality mismatch. I suggest something like "a variable declared as global and
a variable accesses with the global namespace, otherwise having the same name…"

-- section 5:

Please explicitly mention the name or URL of the registry table to which this
should be added.