Subject: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-03.txt

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:44:56 -0400

I would like to draw your attention to the following draft:

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-03.txt>

A two week working group last call of this document starts today on 
September 21st 2005 and ends on October 5th 2005 at 6 pm EST.

Please review this document and send issues to the list or direct to the 
author(s).

NB If you do review this document, but have no issues or comments, please 
send both co-chairs (or the list) an email to indicate you have looked at 
it. This will allow the chairs to gauge the scope of reviews of this 
document to aid in our determination on whether to send it to the IESG. 
Thanks.

--
Cyrus Daboo
SIEVE WG Co-chair

---

From: Philip Guenther <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:35:50 -0700

In section 2, since when did RFC 2119 define "CAN"?

Do the references to SMTP MAIL FROM require at least an informative
reference to RFC 2821?

Section 4.3 requires support for RFC 2047 encoding of the subject;
should that same requirement be placed on any phrase portion of the
from?

An example using the :mime parameter would be nice.  How about:
	require "vacation";
	vacation :mime text:
	Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=foo
	
	--foo
	
	I'm at the beach relaxing.  Mmmm, surf...

	--foo
	Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

	<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN"
	     "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd">
	<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>How to relax</TITLE>
	<BASE HREF="http://home.example.com/pictures/"></HEAD>
	<BODY><P>I'm at the <A HREF="beach.gif">beach</A> relaxing.
	Mmmm, <A HREF="ocean.gif">surf</A>...
	</BODY></HTML>

	--foo--
	.

In section 5, there's a space missing between the RFC3461 reference and
the next word, "is".

Philip Guenther

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:54:39 -0700 (PDT)

> In section 2, since when did RFC 2119 define "CAN"?

Wierd. I'll replace it with "REQUIRED", which is used and should be on the
list.

> Do the references to SMTP MAIL FROM require at least an informative

Probably not required, but it doesn't hurt to add it.

> should that same requirement be placed on any phrase portion of the

Right now the text says you have to construct something that's a syntactically
valid mailbox-list, which would preclude any 8bit material. I'm reluctant to
change that since it gets into the issue of exactly how you take structured
header content that contains 8bit and convert it to something legal. This is
very different than converting text to stuff into an unstructured header and
not specified anywhere AFAIK. I really don't think this document is the place
to get into it.

	

> 	--foo--

Why not? Added.

> In section 5, there's a space missing between the RFC3461 reference and

Fixed.

				Ned

---

From: Philip Guenther <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:21:29 -0700

Ned Freed <[email-masked]> writes:
...
>Right now the text says you have to construct something that's a
>syntactically valid mailbox-list, which would preclude any 8bit
>material. I'm reluctant to change that since it gets into the issue
>of exactly how you take structured header content that contains
>8bit and convert it to something legal.

Oops, right.  I withdraw the comment/suggestion.

(Hmmm, if you ban comments and refuse to encode a comma, I think
it would be unambiguous, but oof, that would be an ugly spec.)

Philip Guenther

---

From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:58:49 +0200

On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 19:54 -0700, Ned Freed wrote:
> header content that contains 8bit and convert it to something legal.

IDNA is relevant for mailbox-list, e.g. [email-masked]
which is "[email-masked]" to a user expecting "everything" in
Sieve to be UTF-8.  but I think IDNA in "vacation" should wait until
IDNA is in the base spec (e.g. "address" test), in other words, not yet.
-- 
Kjetil T.

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:22:04 -0700 (PDT)

> IDNA is in the base spec (e.g. "address" test), in other words, not yet.

The binding and use of IDNA in email isn't specified yet, so even talking about
it in the base specific would be premature.

				Ned