Subject: Re: [sieve] WGLC: draft-ietf-sieve-imap-sieve-04.txt

From: Stephan Bosch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:34:43 +0200

On 5/30/2012 10:30 PM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I am starting a working group last call on 
> draft-ietf-sieve-imap-sieve-04.txt. This is the last document this 
> working group has on its plate and once finished, we intend to shut 
> down the working group.
>
> The last call on draft-ietf-sieve-imap-sieve-04.txt will run for two 
> weeks. Please review this draft and send comments to the list. This 
> document has been around for a while, so if you have done a detailed 
> review before, just checking the changes now should be sufficient. In 
> any case, the chairs want to heard from everyone who has done a review 
> and those who have decided for or against doing an implementation of 
> this in the near future.
>

I hope I'm still somewhat on time with the following small comments:

*) In Section 2.1, the syntax of the new IMAP capability is described. 
It includes a sieveurl-server syntax item. Although I expect anyone on 
this list to know what it is for, I think it would be good to mention 
explicitly that it points to the ManageSieve server the client needs to  
contact for managing Sieve scripts.

*) I wonder what happens if the fileinto action points to the mailbox 
the message currently resides in (call it the 'source mailbox'). Does it 
match 'keep' behavior in that special case, or will it just create a 
copy of the message in the source mailbox (potentially dropping the 
original)? Current text suggests the latter and that is also what I 
prefer: I'd like to be able to create a new version of the message in 
the same mailbox. I think it would be good to mention this special 
situation explicitly either way.

Overall, I really like the quality of this specification. Once our IMAP 
server gains the required METADATA support I intend to implement this 
extension.

Regards,

Stephan.

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:07:22 -0400

Hi Stephan,

--On July 9, 2012 10:34:43 AM +0200 Stephan Bosch <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> *) In Section 2.1, the syntax of the new IMAP capability is described. It
> includes a sieveurl-server syntax item. Although I expect anyone on this
> list to know what it is for, I think it would be good to mention
> *) I wonder what happens if the fileinto action points to the mailbox the
> message currently resides in (call it the 'source mailbox'). Does it
> match 'keep' behavior in that special case, or will it just create a copy
> of the message in the source mailbox (potentially dropping the original)?
> Current text suggests the latter and that is also what I prefer: I'd like
> to be able to create a new version of the message in the same mailbox. I
> think it would be good to mention this special situation explicitly
> either way.
>

Thanks for the feedback. I'll leave Barry to address these points now if he 
wishes. However, I am in the process of putting together a write-up for 
this document so we can move forward with processing it. So we might wait 
until after IETF last call to address your issues in a new draft, depending 
on timing.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:11:43 -0400

Thanks for the review and comments, Stephan, and for the interest in
implementing this.

> I hope I'm still somewhat on time with the following small comments:

Late is fine, when the comments are useful.  :-)
I'm about to upload an -06 version with the following changes.

> list to know what it is for, I think it would be good to mention explicitly
> that it points to the ManageSieve server the client needs to  contact for
> managing Sieve scripts.

I have added a new sentence to the end of this paragraph:

   Only one "imapsieve" capability string, specifying one sieveurl-
   server, can be present.  The sieveurl-server identifies the
   ManageSieve server that clients need to contact for managing Sieve
   scripts associated with this IMAP server.

> message currently resides in (call it the 'source mailbox'). Does it match
> 'keep' behavior in that special case, or will it just create a copy of the
> message in the source mailbox (potentially dropping the original)? Current
> text suggests the latter and that is also what I prefer: I'd like to be able
> to create a new version of the message in the same mailbox. I think it would
> be good to mention this special situation explicitly either way.

I have added a new sentence to the end of this paragraph:

   For APPEND, MULTIAPPEND, and COPY, the message is stored into the
   fileinto mailbox IN ADDITION TO the original target mailbox.  For
   flag changes, the message is COPIED into the fileinto mailbox,
   without removing the original.  In all cases, fileinto always creates
   a new message, separate from the original.

Barry

---

From: Stephan Bosch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 01:29:14 +0200

>     scripts associated with this IMAP server.

Agreed.

>     a new message, separate from the original.

Good.

Regards,

Stephan.