Subject: [sieve] AD review of draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:53:41 -0700

Folks, I've been asked to sponsor draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply because
your customary area director is a co-author of this document. Here is my
AD review.

Overall this is a fine document and a creative re-use of existing Sieve
extensions.

I found a few of the sentences a bit difficult to parse, but I also
didn't find an easy way to rephrase them, so feel free to ignore this
comment. :)

The introduction references the last paragraph of the security
considerations, but as far as I can see that paragraph doesn't have
anything to do with security and I think it would make more sense to
include this text in the introduction...

   Finally, users of any auto-reply mechanism should really think about
   whether automatic replies are necessary, and at what interval they
   make sense when they are.  Email is not Instant Messaging, and
   senders generally expect that replies might take a while.  Consider
   whether it's truly important to tell people that you'll read their
   mail in an hour or so, or whether that can just be taken as how email
   works.  There are times when this makes sense, but let's not use it
   to exacerbate information overload.

This document normatively references several other I-Ds. Does the WG
have any concerns that the referenced I-Ds will change materially? It
seems perhaps safer to advance the referenced I-Ds first, just in case.

Peter

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

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 07:13:56 +0000

>your customary area director is a co-author of this document. Here is my
Hi Peter,
Thank you for the review.

>didn't find an easy way to rephrase them, so feel free to ignore this
:-)

>   to exacerbate information overload.
Works for me.

>seems perhaps safer to advance the referenced I-Ds first, just in case.
The document references 3 other drafts. One of them is still being 
worked on (Sieve external list), the other 2 are already in IESG review.
So far the proposed changes to Seive external list don't invalidate 
examples.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:40:32 -0700

> So far the proposed changes to Seive external list don't invalidate

OK, good. I'll monitor those discussions just to be sure.

Peter

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

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:57:06 -0500

>>  to exacerbate information overload.

And for me as well.  I've made the change in my working copy.

> The document references 3 other drafts. One of them is still being worked on
> (Sieve external list), the other 2 are already in IESG review.

The only relevant change I foresee in external-list is the use of a
"pab" URI scheme.  The autoreply doc will wait in the RFC-ed queue for
external-list anyway, and if we decide to change one of the examples
to use "pab:default", say, we can do that during AUTH48.  It won't
change the substance of the autoreply doc, in any case.

Barry