ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-08

2008-12-23 13:12:08
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-08
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Review Date: 2008-12-23
IETF LC End Date: 2009-01-14
IESG Telechat date: (not known)

Summary: Almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. Please see
notes below.
Hi Spencer,
Thank you for your review.
Comments:


3.  mailbox and mboxmetadata extensions


3.1.  Test mailboxexists

  Note that a successful "mailboxexists" test for a mailbox doesn't
  necessarily mean that a "fileinto" action on this mailbox would
  succeed.  For example the "fileinto" action might put user over
  quota.  The "mailboxexists" only verifies existence of the mailbox
  and whether the user in whose context the Sieve script runs has
  permissions to execute fileinto on it.

Spencer (nit): you've been putting "fileinto" in quotes, up to this point -
suggest that this be consistent.
Ok.
In my experience RFC editors are quite good in catching this type of thing. But I will fix that if I need to publish another revision before publication.

  The capability string for use with the require command is "mailbox".

  Example: The following example assumes that the Sieve engine also
  supports "reject" [REJECT] and "fileinto" [SIEVE].  However these
  extensions are not required in order to implement the "mailbox"
  extension.

       require ["fileinto", "reject", "mailbox"];
       if mailboxexists "Partners" {
          fileinto "Partners";
       } else {
          reject "This message was not accepted by the Mailstore";
       }

5.  Security Considerations

  Extensions defined in this document deliberately don't provide a way
  to modify annotations.

Spencer: The next two paragraphs punt to "same as sieve script" - could you
provide a specific reference for the reader here?
Reference to the Sieve document?
Just the reference would
be fine, nothing else needed.

  A failure to retrieve data due to the server storing the annotations
  being down or otherwise inaccessible may alter the result of Sieve
  processing.  So implementations SHOULD treat a temporary failure to
  retrieve annotations in the same manner as a temporary failure to
  retrieve a Sieve script.

  Protocols/APIs used to retrieve annotations MUST provide the same
  level of confidentiality as protocols/APIs used to retrieve Sieve
  scripts.


6.  IANA Considerations

  IANA is requested to add the following registrations to the list of
  Sieve extensions:

  To: iana(_at_)iana(_dot_)org
  Subject: Registration of new Sieve extension
  Capability name: mailbox
  Description: adds test for checking for mailbox existence and a new
  optional argument to fileinto for creating a mailbox before
  attempting mail delivery.
  RFC number: this RFC

Spencer: you probably want to add notes to IANA and the RFC Editor to
replace "this RFC" with the RFC number when it is assigned (just make it
easier for them).
Ok.
  Contact address:
      The Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>

  Capability name: mboxmetadata
  Description: adds tests for checking for mailbox metadata item
  existence and for retrieving of a mailbox metadata value.
  RFC number: this RFC
  Contact address:
      The Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>

  Capability name: servermetadata
  Description: adds tests for checking for server metadata item
  existence and for retrieving of a server metadata value.
  RFC number: this RFC
  Contact address:
      The Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>

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

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