Sharon Chisholm wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-09.txt
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
that should be fixed before publication.
Comments
--------
Note that since this was a bis, I mostly avoided comments that would
have led to massive rewrites of existing text.
Hi Sharon,
Thanks for the comments. I've quickly scanned through them (and I think
they are mostly correct) and will only comment on two of them. Philip
should comment on the rest.
4. In section 2.4.2.1, first paragraph it says "Implementations are
encouraged to use short-circuit evaluation in these cases." This seems
an arbitrary and somewhat obvious bit of implementation advice.
This text is trying to say that implementations may (even MAY) use
short-circuit evaluation.
I agree that this section might not be the obvious place for this kind
of advice, but I think it is Ok.
Unless you want to have a separate section stating implementation
considerations?
12. In section 2.10.3, it says that "Implementations SHOULD NOT deliver
a message to the same mailbox more than once", but it doesn't indicate
under which circumstances it would be OK to do this.
This sentence is trying to say that implementations SHOULD support
duplicate elimination when a message is delivered to the same mailbox, e.g.
fileinto "ABC";
fileinto "ABC";
should just behave as:
fileinto "ABC";
I can't think of any other case when duplicate elimination would be Ok.
Regards,
Alexey
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
