[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Future directions for the ManageSieve draft

2006-12-05 07:24:34

Aaron Stone wrote:

On Mon, Dec 4, 2006, Sebastian Hagedorn <Hagedorn(_at_)uni-koeln(_dot_)de> said:

[Alexey wrote:]
I've recently submitted draft-martin-managesieve-07.txt. I would like to
get some feedback from people on whether the ManageSieve document should
try to document what is currently deployed, or whether it should be
changed to make ManageSieve more consistent with protocols like IMAP and

as a user of smartsieve, easysieve, Mulberry and other tools that use ManagSieve I'd prefer the draft to document what's currently deployed.
Indeed, there are a sufficient number of interoperable implementations
right now that we probably have to treat -06 as written in stone, much
like imapflags vs. imap4flags because the former was so widely deployed.
There are many problems with existing clients in handling of strings (some clients expect only quoted or only literal strings in some places) and in handling of SASL authentication exchanges when "additional data" is not sent with "success indicator". This concerns me. ManageSieve interoperability seems to be worse then IMAP interoperability.

I have two issues with -07, with the way that the NOTIFY extensions are
listed. I don't dislike the proposal, but it will necessitate an API
change for me,

Can you elaborate?

and it entails a normative reference on NOTIFY, doesn't it?
By the time ManageSieve document is approved for publication, the NOTIFY extensions should be already published ;-). So I think this is a non issue.

What about future extensions that also need reporting to the user
interface? I think it would be better to make it a generic extension
reporting mechanism.

All future ManageSieve extensions will have to be registered with IANA, so I don't see much point in providing generic syntax.

How does this change avoid the API change you've mentioned above?