A few comments on http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply-00.txt.
IMO none of this needs to be addressed immediately.
First, there's a note at the end of the introduction that probably
should be removed at this point.
All the examples make use of the envelope extension, but none of the require
clauses list it.
The description of the first example says: "which will be used in the response
to the sender" That's not quite right - the status is the entire response. I
suggest changing this to "which will be used as the response to the sender".
Finally, the security considerations section says:
See the referenced specifications, below for discussion of security
considerations for Sieve scripts in general, and for each of the
extensions in particular.
I think the intent is to say the specifications listed in the references
section talk about more general Sieve security issues, but the way it reads,
it sounds like there are references to documents in the security considerations
section, which in fact there are not. Additionally, some of the security
considerations for vacation in particular only appear in the base
specification, RFC 5230.
I suggest adding an informative (or normative) reference to RFC 5230, and
changing this to directly reference the relevant documents, e.g., something
like:
[RFC5230] and [I-D.ietf-sieve-vacation-seconds] discuss various security
considerations associated with use of the vacation extension. [RFC5435]
and the various method specifications contain similar considerations
for the notify extension. [I-D.ietf-sieve-external-lists] discusses
security considerations associated with accessing external lists.
That's it!
Ned
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve