Here's IANA's review. I guess the only real issue is what the
registration procedures are for the "Auto-Submitted Header Keywords"
registry.
-----
Comment: IANA Last Call comments:
IANA has questions:
Please define the registration procedures for the new registry
created in section 6.2.
Action 1 (section 6.1):
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Sieve Notification Mechanisms" registry located
at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-notification
Mechanism name: mailto
Mechanism URI: RFC2368
Mechanism-specific tags: none
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: [RFC- ietf-
sieve-notify-mailto-06.txt]
Person and email address to contact for further information:
Michael Haardt <michael(_dot_)haardt(_at_)freenet(_dot_)ag>
Action 2 (sections 6.2, 6.3):
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the following
registry "Auto-Submitted Header Keywords" located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD
Registration Template:
To: iana(_at_)iana(_dot_)org
Subject: Registration of new auto-submitted header field keyword
Keyword value: [the text value of the field]
Description: [a brief explanation of the purpose of this value]
Parameters: [list any keyword-specific parameters, specify their
meanings, specify whether they are required or optional; use "none"
if there are none]
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: [identifies the
specification that defines the value being registered]
Contact: [name and email address to contact for further information]
Registration Procedures: UNKNOWN
Initial contents of this registry will be:
Keyword value: no
Description: Indicates that a message was NOT automatically
generated, but was created by a human. It is the equivalent to the
absence of an Auto-Submitted header altogether.
Parameters: none
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834
Contact: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Keyword value: auto-generated
Description: Indicates that a message was generated by an
automatic process, and is not a direct response to another
message.
Parameters: none
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834
Contact: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Keyword value: auto-replied
Description: Indicates that a message was automatically generated
as a direct response to another message.
Parameters: none
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834
Contact: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Keyword value: sieve-notify
Description: Indicates that a message was generated by a Sieve
notification system.
Parameters: owner-email, owner-token. Both optional, both refer to
the owner of the Sieve script that generated this message. See the
relevant RFC for details.
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number:
[RFC-sieve-notify-mailto-07]
Contact: Michael Haardt <michael(_dot_)haardt(_at_)freenet(_dot_)ag>
We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this
document.
On Sep 2, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
In Lisa Dusseault's apps area activity report for July and August, I
noticed this item:
> draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto (PS): Finished IETF Last Call,
> IANA has issues
What are the IANA issues? Can the WG help here to move this I-D
forward?
Peter