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@xxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf