[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [sieve] SIEVE WG Status

2011-06-21 16:57:42
Cyrus Daboo wrote:

Hi folks,

Hi Cyrus,

I wanted to give a status update of the WG and also ask a few questions of everyone to see where we want to go. This comes at the prompting of our new AD who wants to judge the "energy level" of this WG to determine whether it makes sense for the WG to continue.

Note that I did request a 1 hour session for the upcoming meeting in Quebec City

The last face-to-face WG meeting was last July. Since then the following drafts have been through IETF processing and are now in the RFC editor queue:



I think these drafts were past AUTH48 when I stopped them from being published (due to the reference to draft-ietf-sieve-external-lists). So the RFC Editor should be told that we want to review/fix examples before publishing.

These should all be published soon (having mostly been blocked on external-lists which was recently approved). Thanks to everyone for their work on these.

There has been a WG last call on the draft-ietf-sieve-include document and an update to that will be available very shortly so that we can continue with IETF processing of that.

All our other drafts are currently expired. From our charter, here are the outstanding items that have previous had drafts published:

  (1) Finish work on existing in-progress Working Group documents:
      (b) Notify SIP (draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message)
      (c) RegEx (draft-ietf-sieve-regex)
      (e) Sieve in IMAP (draft-ietf-sieve-imap-sieve)

  (2) Finalize and publish the following SIEVE extensions as proposed
      (d) Convert messages (draft-melnikov-sieve-convert)

I am particularly interested in (c) and (e) at this point. I would really appreciate somebody showing interest in (b) and (d).

Can the authors of these documents please provide a status update and indicate whether they intend to continue work on them? Can we also have other people comment on whether they intend to implement, or at least review or help with, any of these drafts?

If the WG does shut down, it seems reasonable for any of these drafts to continue on as individual contributions.

Does our esteemed AD agree?

At the very least, if we are going to continue work on them I would like to see updates published in time for discussion at the IETF meeting (July 11th cut-off for draft submission).

We have a bunch of other items on our charter which I have listed below with some of my own comments on what I think should happen with them. Please comment on these yourselves so we can decide whether to continue or drop these from the charter if we decide the WG should continue on.

  (3) Work on a specification for iCalendar and vCard extraction, and
  cooperate with the VCARDDAV WG for address book tests in Sieve.

I suspect I might have been one of the primary movers for this particular topic, but at this point I don't it is relevant any more. So I would be in favor of dropping this.

My idea behind this was to have a test that can reach inside XML body parts, possibly using XPath or similar.

  (4) Work on a specification to describe how EAI/IDN issues should be
  handled in SIEVE.

We have periodically asked about this, and most of the time there seemed very little that needed to be done in SIEVE to deal with this. One option going forward is for the WG to drop this item in favor of it being picked up in the EAI WG.

I declare this to be Pete's problem either way ;-).
Doing this in EAI would be fine.

  (5) Work on a "Benefits of SIEVE" guide for client and server vendors
      (a) Describes the SIEVE protocol and its suite of extensions.
(b) Explains the benefits of server-side filtering in practical terms.
      (c) Shows how client-side filtering can be migrated to SIEVE.

Whilst there was a lot of initial enthusiasm for this when we originally did a re-charter, there has been no progress in developing a document. At this point I would propose we drop this from the charter.

With some sadness, I have to agree.

  (6) Produce one or more informational RFCs containing a set of test
  scripts and test email messages that are to be filtered by the scripts,
and the expected results of that filtering. This will serve as the basis
  of a interoperability test suite to help determine the suitability of
  moving the base specification and selected extensions to Draft status.

Again there was initial enthusiasm for this, but nothing has materialized, so I would also propose dropping this from the charter.


Next question: does anyone have any new SIEVE work they would like to propose at this time?

I don't think anyone can deny this WG has been successful over the years in addressing the needs of SIEVE implementations, even if at our own, sometimes slow, pace. Shutting it down now would not be unreasonable, but I think we do need to prove the utility of keeping it alive. So please chime in with your thoughts.

sieve mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>