Subject: [Uri-review] Request to review sieve URI scheme

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:56:41 +0000

Hi,
I am finishing draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-02.txt which defines the 
sieve: URI scheme. So I would like to ask people to review section 3 of 
the draft.

Thank you,
Alexey

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:33:10 +0100

>sieve: URI scheme. So I would like to ask people to review section 3 of 

You have a reference [IMAP4] but it's not part of the References in the
document. I assume this should be [IMAP4rev1].

You should say upfront that `authority`, `unreserved`, etc. are defined
in STD066 and included by reference. Right now you are using authority
without defining it, and repeat the reference multiple times.

There is not much point in having the sub-delims-sh and uchar rules in
the grammar, you could just use

  ochar = <pchar but not ";", "&", or "=">

or the equivalent (I assume)

  ochar = unreserved / pct-encoded / "!" / "$" / "'" / "(" / ")"
                                   / "*" / "+" / ","
                                   / ":" / "@"

That way readers would not have to read through the comments and expand
the rules manually.

The difference between

  sieve://example/script  (owner absent)
  sieve://example//script (owner empty)

should be explicitly called out somewhere. It would be better if this is
done outside the grammar (the semantics of having an empty owner would
also be better specified outside the grammar).

I don't think comments in the grammar are a good place to re-iterate en-
coding requirements. It would be better if you just said once that chars
other than those explicitly allowed above must be utf-8 encoded and %xx-
escaped to be included.

When you point out facts, like that ' ' can only be included in URLs in
its %xx encoded form, do not use RFC 2119 keywords.

In the "URI scheme semantics" it would be good to include some reference
when it refers to "the REFERRAL response code".

As an aside, throughout the document in registration templates, it would
be good to have a space between To: and Subject: headers, and the body.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

---

From: John Larmouth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:07:23 +0000

Bjoern et al,

I am pleased that Alexey got a quick reply to his mailing, but it would be nice 
if someone could respond to the mail about the "oid:" URI/IRI scheme that was 
posted on 18 November.

Thanks

John L

-- 
    Prof John Larmouth
    Larmouth T&PDS Ltd
    (Training and Protocol Design Services Ltd)
    1 Blueberry Road
    Bowdon                               [email-masked]
    Altrincham
    Cheshire
    WA14 3LS
    England
    Tel (Business): +44 161 408 3695        Fax: +44 161 928 8069
    Tel (Private): +44 161 928 1605
_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:46:27 +0900

I had a look at parts of it. One thing I looked through is whether it's
clear where (percent-encoded) UTF-8 can be used; that seems to be fine.

It might help the reader if the grammar rules were reordered to
read top-down. Currently it's top-down first, but then bottom-up.

Another thing I noticed is that characters such as "&" and "="
are listed as needing percent-encoding. I don't see them being
used in the syntax, so it wouldn't be necessary to percent-encode
them. Or are they reserved for future extensions?

Regards,    Martin.

At 02:56 08/12/01, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>Hi,
>I am finishing draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-02.txt which defines the sieve: URI scheme. So I would like to ask people to review section 3 of the draft.
>
>Thank you,
>Alexey
>

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]