Subject: [lemonade] Proposed Agenda for Dublin

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:58:10 +0100

I would like to propose the following agenda for the Lemonade WG meeting 
in Dublin:

=================================================================
Agenda bashing                                          ( 5 mins)
Document status review                                  (10 mins)
Review of WGLC issues in IMAP NOTIFY
(draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-notify-06.txt)                (15 mins)
WGLC issues for Lemonade Profile Bis
(draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-bis-10.txt)                (35 mins)
Discussion on revising QRESYNC                          (20 mins)
Review of draft-melnikov-imapext-filters-05.txt         (20 mins)
Additional CONVERT parameters for image/* and video/*
(draft-melnikov-lemonade-convert-params-01.txt)         (20 mins)
Post WGLC comments on IMAP Sieve
(draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-sieve-05.txt)                 (25 mins)
=================================================================
Total:                                                  150 mins
=================================================================

Comments?
(My appologies to Barry for putting IMAP Sieve at the end, but I think 
it might take some time to discuss, so I wanted to make sure that all 
other documents are discussed. If people think this is an error, let me 
know.)

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:48:21 -0500

On 7/17/08 at 5:58 PM +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

>I would like to propose the following agenda for the Lemonade WG 
>meeting in Dublin:
>

OK.

>Document status review                                  (10 mins)

Can Eric and/or Glenn send this out to the list this week so we don't 
have to waste time on it during the meeting?

>(draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-notify-06.txt)                (15 mins)

I count one (1) open issue here, and that one is purely textual, correct?

>(draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-bis-10.txt)                (35 mins)

Yup. Very little on the list so far.

>Discussion on revising QRESYNC                          (20 mins)

OK.

>Review of draft-melnikov-imapext-filters-05.txt         (20 mins)

Yup, except for Timo, near silence on the list.

>(draft-melnikov-lemonade-convert-params-01.txt)         (20 mins)

OK.

>(My appologies to Barry for putting IMAP Sieve at the end, but I 
>think it might take some time to discuss, so I wanted to make sure 
>that all other documents are discussed. If people think this is an 
>error, let me know.)

There's nothing on the LEMONADE list on this. I haven't kept up with 
SIEVE. Are there issues?

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

---

From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:08:39 +0300

> There's nothing on the LEMONADE list on this. I haven't kept up with 

Some issues were pointed out in ietf-mta-filters:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/msg03973.html

Based on Ned's comments it doesn't feel like it's ready..

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:06:25 +0100

Pete Resnick wrote:

> I count one (1) open issue here,

Yes: Timo's suggestion.

> and that one is purely textual, correct?

No, it would require some ABNF changes, etc. But hopefully it is not 
going to be controversial.

Chris Newman also did his AD review. Most of the issues he found are 
straight bugs that I don't think need to be discussed. But there might 
be some issues worth going through during the meeting. I will followup 
on this in a separate email.

> Yup. Very little on the list so far.

Please do your share and review the document ;-).
 [...]

> There's nothing on the LEMONADE list on this. I haven't kept up with 

Timo already posted a link to the relevant message from Ned.

---

From: Dan Karp <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:28:24 -0700 (PDT)

> Yup. Very little on the list so far.

Wait a sec -- we slipped an entirely new mandatory server and protocol
into -10 a few days before Last Call?  Can we reconsider this?
_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:30:29 +0100

>into -10 a few days before Last Call?  Can we reconsider this?
WGLC is the right time to discuss topics like this.

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:36:08 +0200

>> Wait a sec -- we slipped an entirely new mandatory server and 
>> protocol into -10 a few days before Last Call?  Can we reconsider 
>> this?
>

No, WGLC is the last chance to, &c.

I am not thrilled by this. Now lemonade gets to block on the magical 
managesieve port question, and why? I do not remember a flood of 
questions on the list about the deplorable omission of managesieve.

Arnt

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:21:12 -0400

Is WGLC the right time to introduce something totally new?  Not  
normally, but it is not disallowed, either.

I would offer the issue is not so much sneaking something in at the  
last minute, but forgetting to mention it long ago.

We always knew lemonade would use SIEVE.  We always knew we would have  
to manage SIEVE somehow.  We just forgot to say so.

So...

Whilst it seems late to mention ManageSIEVE in profile-bis, it is in  
the document that is in WGLC.  If there are substantive WGLC comments,  
please make them.

On Jul 21, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> Alexey Melnikov writes:
>> Dan Karp wrote:
>>>>> WGLC issues for Lemonade Profile Bis (draft-ietf-lemonade- 
>>>>> profile-bis-10.txt)                (35 mins)
>>>>

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:45:52 +0200

> normally, but it is not disallowed, either.

Right.

> the document that is in WGLC.  If there are substantive WGLC 
> comments,  please make them.

OK.

1. Managesieve's use of port 2000 is begging for trouble. IMO the best 
option would be for IANA to assign port 2000 to Managesieve, but IANA 
might see that differently.

Second best in my opinion would be to say "do a SRV lookup for 
_managesieve._tcp.<domain> and connect to that", where <domain> is the 
email address domain.

2. I'm vaguely unhappy about the setactive command. Not quite unhappy 
enough to have mentioned it before, but since you ask: it seems a 
little ot of touch with putscript. One user can upload many sieve 
scripts, but can setactive only one. There's no way to use one sieve 
script for one alias (or role account) and another for another.

I've no suggestions, but you asked for comments, not only for suggestions ;)

Arnt

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:46:42 -0400

Comments are better than nothing.

Anyone else?

On Jul 23, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

>> I would offer the issue is not so much sneaking something in at  
>> the  last minute, but forgetting to mention it long ago.
>>
>> We always knew lemonade would use SIEVE.  We always knew we would  
>> have  to manage SIEVE somehow.  We just forgot to say so.
>>
>> So...
>>
>> Whilst it seems late to mention ManageSIEVE in profile-bis, it is  
>> in  the document that is in WGLC.  If there are substantive WGLC  
> 1. Managesieve's use of port 2000 is begging for trouble. IMO the  
> best option would be for IANA to assign port 2000 to Managesieve,  
> but IANA might see that differently.
>
> _managesieve._tcp.<domain> and connect to that", where <domain> is  
> the email address domain.
>
> 2. I'm vaguely unhappy about the setactive command. Not quite  
> unhappy enough to have mentioned it before, but since you ask: it  
> seems a little ot of touch with putscript. One user can upload many  
> sieve scripts, but can setactive only one. There's no way to use one  
> sieve script for one alias (or role account) and another for another.
>

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:38:24 -0700

At 9:45 PM +0200 7/23/08, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> sieve scripts, but can setactive only one. There's no way to use 
> one sieve script for one alias (or role account) and another for 
> another.

Or for multiple clients to each upload their own small script.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Lou: "Hey, Abbot, I hear that if you play the NT 4.0 CD backward, you
get a satanic message."

Bud: "That's nothing. If you play it forward, it installs NT 4.0."
_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:39:42 -0700

> have to manage SIEVE somehow.  We just forgot to say so.

I'd feel better if we punted on ManageSieve for now.

-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
    The highlight of the annual Computer Bowl occurred when Bill Gates,
who was a judge, posed the following question to the contestants:
    "What contest, held via Usenet, is dedicated to examples of weird,
obscure, bizarre, and really bad programming?"
    After a moment of silence, Jean-Louis Gassee (ex-honcho at Apple)
hit his buzzer and answered "Windows."
                                          --Recounted by Adam C. Engst
_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade