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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Spencer Dawkins wrote:

Hi, Alexey,

Hi Spencer,

Thanks for the quick response back... now I can remember what I said in the review ;-)

Spencer

Spencer Dawkins wrote:

[...]

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?

If that's where the security considerations for sieve scripts are located - that would be fine.

After thinking more about this: RFC 5228 (Sieve base) doesn't describe how Sieve scripts are stored and how to handle failure to retrieve them - this is out of scope for both documents. However I can add an example of what I meant here - if a Sieve script is stored in LDAP and the script can't be retrieved when a message is processed, then the agent performing Sieve processing can, for example, assume that the script doesn't exist, or delay message delivery until the script can be retrieved successfully. Annotations should be treated as if they are a part of the script itself, so a temporary failure to retrieve them should be handled in the same way as a temporary failure to retrieve the Sieve script itself.

_______________________________________________

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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]