[Ballot comment]
Section 6:

Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>

Shouldn't this say: IETF, Sieve WG mailing list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>

To make it clear that it is an activity of the IETF? So that one knows where to go when this address doesn't work.

[Ballot discuss]
The document goes much beyond providing information about the Sieve
interpreter environment; it also provides information about the SMTP
(or similar) connection used for delivering a particular message.
This is really a property associated with the message, not the
interpreter.

Even if both of these features are provided in the same document, the
abstract, introduction, and other places should more accurately
describe the scope. Defining two separate test names would clarify the
situation considerably; at the very least, Section 4.1 should be split
to two subsections, one for each type of information.

IANA Last Call comments:

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Sieve Extensions" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions

Capability name: environment
Description: The "environment" extension provides a new
environment test that can be used to implement
scripts that behave differently when moved
from one system to another or otherwise
operated in different contexts.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>


Action 2:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the registry
"Sieve Environment Names" at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registration Procedures: First Come First Served
Initial contents of this registry will be:

Note:

Extensions designed for interoperable use SHOULD be defined in
standards track or experimental RFCs. Groups of standardized
items MAY choose to use a common name prefix of the form
"name.".

Items not defined in a standards track or experimental RFC MUST
have a name that begins with the "vnd." prefix and this prefix
SHOULD be followed by the name of the vendor or product, such as
"vnd.acme.rocket-sled-status".

The following template is to be used for registering new Sieve
environment item names with IANA.

To: iana@iana.org
Subject: Registration of new Sieve environment item

Capability name: [the string for use in the 'environment' test]
Description: [a brief description of the semantics of the
value the item returns]

RFC number: [for extensions published as RFCs]
Contact address: [email and/or physical address to contact for
additional information]

Registry:

Capability name: domain
Description: The primary DNS domain associated with the Sieve
execution context, usually but not always a proper suffix of the host name.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>

Capability name: evaluation-time
Description: Time at which this Sieve processing is being
performed.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>

Capability name: host
Description: The fully-qualified domain name of the host
where the Sieve script is executing.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>

Capability name: name
Description: The product name associated with the Sieve
interpreter.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>

Capability name: remote-host
Description: Host name of remote SMTP client, if applicable
and available.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>

Capability name: remote-ip
Description: IP address of remote SMTP client, if applicable
and available.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>

Capability name: version
Description: The product version associated with the Sieve
interpreter.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this
document.

AD Review of draft-freed-sieve-environment-04:

While this is of sufficient quality for last call, I recommend two changes prior to IESG review:

1. Please make the definition of "product version" more precise.  If
it's simply a numeric version number than it will create interoperability
problems.  If it includes the product name then that wouldn't be a
problem.

2. While we could wait for IANA to give an opinion, I don't think the
IANA considerations section is clear enough.  A "SHOULD" is open to
interpretation and thus would require assignment of a designated
expert and guidelines for the expert would be helpful.  So either make
it a MUST, or we need a designated expert to make the judgement call.

(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
      document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
      version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> is the document shepherd for
this document. The document is ready for publication.

(1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
      and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
      any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
      have been performed?

This is an individual submission and is a normative dependency for one of the Lemonade WG documents. The document was adequately reviewed on the Sieve mailing list and there are no concerns about the depth of the reviews.

(1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
      e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
      AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

(1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
      issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
      and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
      or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the  document, or
      has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
      event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
      that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
      concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this  document
      been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
      disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
      this issue.

No IPR disclosure was filed for this document.

(1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
      represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
      others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
      agree with it?

This document is an individual submission, but it was reviewed on the Sieve WG mailing list. There is at least 1 existing implementation and at least 3 more implementations are planned.

(1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated  extreme
      discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
      separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
      should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
      entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
      document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
      http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
      http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
      not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the  document
      met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
      Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

IDnits 2.08.04 was used to verify the document. It only reports 2 warnings and 2 comments, which are incorrect.

(1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
      informative?  Are there normative references to documents  that
      are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
      state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
      strategy for their completion?  Are there normative  references
      that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
      so, list these downward references to support the Area
      Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes, references are properly split. There are no downward normative
references.

(1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
      of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
      extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
      registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
      the document creates a new registry, does it define the
      proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
      procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
      reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
      document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
      conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
      can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

IANA considerations section exists and is clearly defined. It registers one new Sieve extension in the Sieve extensions registry, plus define one new registry.

(1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
      code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
      an automated checker?

The document doesn't use any of the formal languages listed above.

(1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
      Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Write-Up?  Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
      announcement contains the following sections:

      Technical Summary
          Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
          and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
          an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
          or introduction.

This document describes the "environment" extension to the Sieve
email filtering language. The "environment" extension gives Sieve
access to information about the environment where the Sieve
interpreter is running.

This document is targeted to become a Proposed Standard.

      Working Group Summary
          Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
          example, was there controversy about particular points or
          were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
          rough?

This is an individual submission, but the document was extensively reviewed on the Sieve WG mailing list.
There was strong support in favor of this document from implementors. There were some discussions
about list of initial attributes specified in the document, but most of them were centered around naming.

This document is a normative dependency of the IMAP Sieve draft, which is a Lemonade WG document.

      Document Quality
          Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
          significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
          implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
          merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
          e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
          conclusion that the document had no substantive  issues?  If
          there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
          what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media  Type
          review, on what date was the request posted?

At least 5 people have reviewed the current or earlier versions of the document. Posted comments were addressed in the latest revision.
There is 1 existing implementation and at least 3 more are planned.
*
*      Personnel
          Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is  the
          Responsible Area Director?

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> is the document shepherd for
this document.