Subject: [sieve] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence-00

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:00:59 -0400

Hi folks,
We are starting a working group last call on 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence/> today. 
This will run for two weeks, i.e. finish Tuesday October 12th. Please 
review this document and provide comments back on this list, to the authors 
and chairs. If you review it and have no issues, please also send a comment 
to the list to that effect.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:40:37 -0400

Hi,
Some comments on draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence-00:

Section 2: there are several lowercase "may" and one "must" present. Please 
review each of these and determine whether they ought to be 2119 keywords 
and uppercase them as appropriate.

Section 2: change "enotify.[RFC5435]" to "enotify [RFC5435]."

Section 3: "WILL" and "WILL NOT" are uppercase - probably better to 
lowercase?

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 01:43:54 -0400

> and uppercase them as appropriate.

Yeah, the problem is that "may" is a perfectly good English word, and
avoiding it often results in contrived text.  I think I prefer all the
lower-case "may" as they are, and I've changed the 2119 section to
explicitly say that only the upper-case versions are keywords.  I did
change the "must", by removing the word.

> Section 2: change "enotify.[RFC5435]" to "enotify [RFC5435]."

Why?  I don't like it that way.
Why don't we just see what the RFC Editor does with it, and leave it at that?

> Section 3: "WILL" and "WILL NOT" are uppercase - probably better to

Yes; changed.

I won't post the update until some others have had a chance to review
what's there.

Barry

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:32:07 -0400

Hi Barry,

> Why don't we just see what the RFC Editor does with it, and leave it at

The problem is the reference applies to the word prior to the end of the 
sentence so the period should go after the reference. What I quoted above 
may not look bad, but when you add the following sentence in it looks odd 
because the reference appears to be the start of the following sentence.

I am sure the RFC editor will deal with this, but I do think it is wrong 
and we might as well give them a little less work to do...

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:32:20 -0600

> change the "must", by removing the word.

Although scrubbing all lower-case instances of the conformance keywords
might seem a tad contrived, I've started doing that in all my specs to
forestall any possible confusion. I've found that it works in almost all
cases to change "may" to "can" or "might", "should" to "ought", and
"must" to "needs to" (or similar constructions).

YMMV, naturally. :)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/