[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fwd: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-07.txt]

2008-04-01 12:36:30

Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

Alexey Melnikov writes:

Folks, Cyrus and I as chairs need more feedback on whether SHOULDs need to be changed to MUSTs. See my forwarded reply.

I don't mind making these MUST.

Except that I do just a little, but I'd wiggle even in case of MUST. Details below.

  o  The "Subject:" field of the notification message MUST

If I were to implement notify-mailto, my code might use different RFC 2047 encoding.

This doesn't contradict the MUST, as it says nothing about encodings.

If the original subject is invalid in some way I wouldn't respond in kind.

Can you clarify?

The part that reads:

If ":from" is not specified or is not valid, the envelope sender of the notification message SHOULD be set either to the envelope "to" field from the triggering message, as used by Sieve, or to a fixed email address (so it "comes from the notification system"), at the discretion of the implementation.

already list all possible alternatives, so I don't think it is a SHOULD either.

Those aren't all possible alternatives, so although I don't mind MUST I rather like keeping SHOULD. (One other alternative is a system address with a single-use subaddress.)

Ok, you and Barry have convinced me that this SHOULD is fine.
Also, how about deleting the word "fixed" above?