ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [sieve] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sieve-include-11.txt

2011-09-27 15:02:35
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Stephan Bosch 
<stephan(_at_)rename-it(_dot_)nl> wrote:
Hi Aaron,

Op 23-9-2011 21:20, internet-drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org schreef:

 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
 directories. This draft is a work item of the Sieve Mail Filtering
 Language Working Group of the IETF.

 Title : Sieve Email Filtering: Include Extension Author(s)
 : Cyrus Daboo Aaron Stone Filename :
 draft-ietf-sieve-include-11.txt Pages : 15 Date
 : 2011-09-23

 The Sieve Email Filtering &quot;include&quot; extension permits users
 to include one Sieve script inside another. This can make managing
 large scripts or multiple sets of scripts much easier, and allows a
 site and its users to build up libraries of scripts. Users are able
 to include their own personal scripts or site-wide scripts.


You missed one issue I mentioned earlier: the paragraph about the
application of the :once parameter starting at the end of page 5 and
continuing on page 6 should be located directly below the description of the
:once parameter and not below the paragraph describing :optional. So, it
should  be moved one paragraph up.

Got it.

A small editorial nit:

The "spam_checks" example on page 10 has a require statement starting in the
wrong text column and the global command that follows should be on the next
line.

Fixed.

Finally, I'd like to share a few things I only notice now because I've
recently read RFC 5703 (mime extensions) once more. On page 6 of the include
draft the following is mentioned:

  The "include" command MAY appear anywhere in a script where a control
  structure is legal, and MAY be used within another control structure,
  e.g., within an "if" or "foreverypart" block (MIME [RFC5703]).

So, from this I understand that the foreverypart context is passed down to
any script included while in this context. This means that the behavior of
the :mime-augmented tests in the included scripts is influenced accordingly.

I don't see why the context would be passed along, but I'll note
explicitly that it is not:

OLD:
255           The "include" command MAY appear anywhere in a script where a
256           control structure is legal, and MAY be used within another control
257           structure, e.g., within an "if" or "foreverypart" block
(<xref target='RFC5703'>MIME</xref>).

NEW:
255           The "include" command MAY appear anywhere in a script where a
256           control structure is legal, and MAY be used within another control
257           structure, e.g., within an "if" or "foreverypart" block
(<xref target='RFC5703'>MIME</xref>).
258           The included script SHALL NOT have any special control over the
259           control structure it was included from, e.g., inclusion
from within a
260           "foreverypart" block does not allow the included script
to directly
261           terminate or continue flow of that block.


Now I was wondering what would happen when a top-level "break" action is
executed in a script included somewhere in context of the foreverypart loop,
or - equivalently - a break statement with name parameter equal to that of
the foreverypart command in the including script. Initially, I feared this
would require ending the included scripts and "return"-ing to the script
executing the loop (at the position of the loop's end).  However, on page 6
of the include draft the following is stated:

  The included script MUST be a valid Sieve script.

In light of the "break" issue, I like to read this as follows:

  The included script MUST be a valid Sieve script in its own right.

Since it is not allowed to have a "break" action outside a foreverypart loop
or a break statement referencing a named loop that does not exist, an
included script with such a break statement is invalid because it is not a
valid Sieve script in its own right, i.e. without the foreverypart loop of
the including script. This nicely prevents having break statements that
cross include boundaries.

Do you agree with this view on the matter? Is some more explicit mention of
the interaction between foreverypart and include necessary?


Regards,

Stephan



_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve

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