Subject: [Extra] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: (with DISCUSS)

From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 06:22:02 -0800

Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

First part is a formality discuss that likely is fairly easy to resolve

So this document uses formal syntax, however it does not explicitly reference
which. So I noticed RFC 5228 that do reference RFC 4234 which is now obsolete,
and the current in force version of ABNF is RFC 5234. Also as no WSP are
included in the rules, this document appears to use ABNF to express RFC 5228
grammar and not parsing syntax. So please clarify prior to the usages what the
formal language is and what it represents.

So this needs to be done prior to Section 5. But, can you please check that you
actually have the same level of  formal syntax in Section 5 that goes through
RFC 8580 as what is in Section 8. Otherwise please clarify both.

Secondly, I do consider the defining text first paragraph of in Section 4.1 so
hard to interpret that it must be fixed prior to publication. So although you
already are going to address it based on discussion of Martin Duke's comment, I
want to hold a discuss on this.