I haven't done any managesieve work (other than read some earlier
documents) but gave this a quick once-over for anything that might jump
out anyway. Nothing really did, other than some stuff calling for picky
comments, so I'll make some :)
Also, I'm a bit curious how there can be a last call (-like) when
there are editorial questions embedded (that is, the things in '[[...]]').
But this isn't a real last call, so I suppose that's the answer.
I found some of the punctuation a little odd but I won't really go
into that (much).
With that..
==========
1.3. Response Codes:
If this response code is returned in the OK response, it can mean
that the user is near its quota or that the user exceeded its quota,
but the server supports soft quotas.
Two things: Here is one place where I think the punctuation affects
the meaning, in that "but the server supports soft quotas" seems to go
with both "near quota" and "exceeded quota" whereas it probably really
goes with the latter. And, "soft quota" can be taken to mean something
specific, whereas I think really what is intended here is that the quota
has been exceeded but this is permitted. (and are we calling users
"it"?) Simply removing the comma might help, as would an alternative
such as:
If this response code is returned in the OK response, it can mean
that the storage is near its quota, or it can mean that the account
exceeded its quota but that that condition is being allowed by the
server.
==========
2.1 ...
"Note that a failed NO response to the AUTHENTICATE command may
contain one of the following response codes:" ...
a "failed NO response" strikes me as being a double negative. Probably
just "a NO response" or one of the words in parens -- "a NO (failed)
response" or "a failed (NO) response".
==========
later in 2.1 ...
"Another example demostrating use of SASL PLAIN mechanism under TLS."
spelling of "demonstrating"
==========
later in 2.1 ...
"The following example demonstrate use of SASL "initial response"."
"demonstrates"
Yours,
mm