Sieve Email Filtering: Delivery Status Notifications and Deliver-By Extensions
draft-freed-sieve-notary-09

[Ballot discuss]
This document updates the usage descriptions for envelope and redirect from Sections 5.4 and 4.2 of RFC 5228. Does it need to be labeled as updating RFC 5228?

[Note]: 'This is a Sieve WG document, despite the name. Cyrus Daboo is the document shepherd. Bringing this document for another IESG review after changes resulting from SecDir review.
' added by Alexey Melnikov

IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments
in the "Sieve Extensions" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions

Capability name: envelope-dsn
Description: The "envelope-dsn" extension extends the envelope
test to allow checking of information associated
with the DSN ESMTP extension defined in RFC 3461.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-notary-08]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list

Capability name: envelope-deliverby
Description: The "envelope-deliverby" extension extends the
envelope test to allow checking of information
associated with the Deliver-By ESMTP extension
defined in RFC 2852.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-notary-08]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list

Capability name: redirect-dsn
Description: The "redirect-dsn" extension extends the redirect
action to allow specification of the NOTIFY and
RET ESMTP parameters associated with the DSN SMTP
extension defined in RFC 3461.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-notary-08]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list

Capability name: redirect-deliverby
Description: The "redirect-deliverby" extension extends the
redirect action to allow specification of the BY
ESMTP parameter associated with the Deliver-By SMTP
extension defined in RFC 2852.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-notary-08]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.

[Ballot comment]
I think Ned argued successfully against this change, but I haven't checked all email exchange between Ned and Tero:

Section 5 also says that the "bytime" is "the initial integer part of
the delive-by extension", but then comments that deliver-by by-time is
decremented as message passes through the transport infrastructure.
This does not make it clear whether the Sieve filtering system should
also decrement the number while message is waiting to be processed.
I.e. if message was received earlier, but it took some time before the
Sieve email filter could be run on the message, should the "bytime" be
the original time from the smtp MAIL FROM BY= part, or whether it is
decremented.
(This needs to be clarified for both "envelope-deliverby" and "redirect-deliverby", because the answer is likely to be different for them.)

[Ballot discuss]
Holding DISCUSS on a part of SecDir review by Tero Kivinen:

Also in section 5, it should be made clear that the "bytime" can also
be negative, if the bymode is "notify" and the message is already
past its notification time.

Section 5 also says that the "bytime" is "the initial integer part of
the delive-by extension", but then comments that deliver-by by-time is
decremented as message passes through the transport infrastructure.
This does not make it clear whether the sieve filtering system should
also decrement the number while message is waiting to be processed.
I.e. if message was received earlier, but it took some time before the
sieve email filter could be run on the message, should the "bytime" be
the original time from the smtp MAIL FROM BY= part, or whether it is
decremented.
(This needs to be clarified for both "envelope-deliverby" and "redirect-deliverby", because the answer is likely to be different for them.)

Also the example in 5.1 is wrong, as it is only true if the sieve
filter is run exactly when the deliver-by expired. It should compare
whether the "bytime" is <= 0, not whether it is equal to 0 (note, that
if the bymode is "return" then the "bytime" never should reach 0, as
at that point mail is returned to the sender.

In section 7 it should be made clear that ":bytime" parameter "" can be negative too, but it seems that RFC 5228 specifies
that numbers can only be non-negative so I am not sure whether the
usage is correct or not.

[Ballot comment]
Section 1

For clarity, I suggest...
s/users may not be allowed/users might not be allowed/
or
s/users may not be allowed/users are not allowed/

---

Section 1
s/sieve/Sieve/

---

Section 4
OLD
  None of the new envelope
  parts defined here have address syntax
NEW
  None of the new envelope
  parts defined here has address syntax

[Ballot discuss]
There are a couple of error conditions described...

Section 4

  The envelope test's ADDRESS-PART argument assumes the string being
  tested has the syntax of an email address.  None of the new envelope
  parts defined here have address syntax, accordingly, it is an error
  to specify an ADDRESS-PART argument in conjunction with these new
  envelope parts.

Section 7

  It is an error to specify :bymode and :bytrace without :bytime.

You should say how these errors are handled. This may be as simple as a
reference to another RFC.

[Ballot comment]
Section 5.

The first paragraph states:

  The "envelope-deliverby" extension does not define any new tests or
  actions, rather, it adds three values to the list of possible (case-
  insensitive) envelope-part strings defined in Section 5.4 of
  [RFC5228].

but the text following the list of envelope-part strings states:

  All of these tests fail unconditionally if ...

perhaps the following substitution would be clearer:

OLD
  All of these tests fail unconditionally if the BY SMTP MAIL FROM
  parameter does not exist for the current message or recipient.
NEW
  The envelope test  fails unconditionally for each of these envelope-part strings
  if the BY SMTP MAIL FROM parameter does not exist for the current message or recipient.

[Ballot comment]
Section 5.

The first paragraph states:

  The "envelope-deliverby" extension does not define any new tests or
  actions, rather, it adds three values to the list of possible (case-
  insensitive) envelope-part strings defined in Section 5.4 of
  [RFC5228].

but the text following the list of envelope-part strings states:

  All of these tests fail unconditionally if ...

perhaps the following substitution would be clearer:

OLD
  All of these tests fail unconditionally if the BY SMTP MAIL FROM
  parameter does not exist for the current message or recipient.
NEW
  The envelope test  fails unconditionally for each of these envelope-part strings
  if the BY SMTP MAIL FROM parameter does not exist for the current message or recipient.

[Ballot comment]
Section 5.

The first paragraph states:


  The "envelope-deliverby" extension does not define any new tests or
  actions, rather, it adds three values to the list of possible (case-
  insensitive) envelope-part strings defined in Section 5.4 of
  [RFC5228].

but the text following the list states:

  All of these tests fail unconditionally if ...

perhaps the following substitution would be clearer:

OLD
  All of these tests fail unconditionally if the BY SMTP MAIL FROM
  parameter does not exist for the current message or recipient.
NEW
  The envelope test  fails unconditionally for each of these envelope-part strings
  if the BY SMTP MAIL FROM parameter does not exist for the current message or recipient.

[Ballot discuss]
Holding DISCUSS on a part of SecDir review by Tero Kivinen:

Also in section 5, it should be made clear that the "bytime" can also
be negative, if the bymode is "notify" and the message is already
pasts is notification time.

Section 5 also says that the "bytime" is "the initial integer part of
the delive-by extension", but then comments that deliver-by by-time is
decremented as message passes through the transport infrastructure.
This does not make it clear whether the sieve filtering system should
also decrement the number while message is waiting to be processed.
I.e. if message was received earlier, but it took some time before the
sieve email filter could be run on the message, should the "bytime" be
the original time from the smtp MAIL FROM BY= part, or whether it is
decremented.
(This needs to be clarified for both "envelope-deliverby" and "redirect-deliverby", because the answer is likely to be different for them.)

Also the example in 5.1 is wrong, as it is only true if the sieve
filter is run exactly when the deliver-by expired. It should compare
whether the "bytime" is <= 0, not whether it is equal to 0 (note, that
if the bymode is "return" then the "bytime" never should reach 0, as
at that point mail is returned to the sender.

In section 7 it should be made clear that ":bytime" parameter "" can be negative too, but it seems that RFC 5228 specifies
that numbers can only be non-negative so I am not sure whether the
usage is correct or not.

[Ballot discuss]
Holding DISCUSS on a part of SecDir review by Tero Kivinen:

Also in section 5, it should be made clear that the "bytime" can also
be negative, if the bymode is "notify" and the message is already
pasts is notification time.

Also the example in 5.1 is wrong, as it is only true if the sieve
filter is run exactly when the deliver-by expired. It should compare
whether the "bytime" is <= 0, not whether it is equal to 0 (note, that
if the bymode is "return" then the "bytime" never should reach 0, as
at that point mail is returned to the sender.

In section 7 it should be made clear that ":bytime" parameter "" can be negative too, but it seems that RFC 5228 specifies
that numbers can only be non-negative so I am not sure whether the
usage is correct or not.

[Ballot comment]
Please consider the Gen-ART Review comments by Spencer Dawkins:

  Section 7, redirect-deliverby extension, says:
  >
  > :bytime specifies the number of seconds within which the message
  > should be delivered. :bymode specifies whether a notification should
  > be sent or the message simply returned if the time limit is exceeded.
  > The default is "return" if :bymode is not specified.  See The
  > semantics of delivery time limits are specified and discussed at
  > length in [RFC2852].
  >
  Spencer said: I'm not sure if this is a cut-and-paste error or if you
  really meant to say something that got left out, but someone smarter
  than I am needs to look at the "See The" here.

IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments
in the "Sieve Extensions" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions

Capability name: envelope-dsn
Description: The "envelope-dsn" extension extends the envelope
test to allow checking of information associated
with the DSN ESMTP extension defined in RFC 3461.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-notary-07]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list

Capability name: envelope-deliverby
Description: The "envelope-deliverby" extension extends the
envelope test to allow checking of information
associated with the Deliver-By ESMTP extension
defined in RFC 2852.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-notary-07]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list

Capability name: redirect-dsn
Description: The "redirect-dsn" extension extends the redirect
action to allow specification of the NOTIFY and
RET ESMTP parameters associated with the DSN SMTP
extension defined in RFC 3461.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-notary-07]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list

Capability name: redirect-deliverby
Description: The "redirect-deliverby" extension extends the
redirect action to allow specification of the BY
ESMTP parameter associated with the Deliver-By SMTP
extension defined in RFC 2852.
RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-notary-07]
Contact address: Sieve discussion list

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.

AD review of the document:

>6.  redirect-dsn extension

Should this be allowing setting of ENVID?
(ORCPT as well? I am less sure about that.)


>7.  redirect-deliverby extension
>
>  The "redirect-deliverby" extension does not define any new tests or
>  actions, rather, it adds three new arguments, BYTIME, BYMODE, and
>  BYTRACE, to the redirect action defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC5228].
>  This updates the usage description for redirect to:
>  [

Extra "["

>  Usage:  redirect [:bytime

It might be too late to ask this question, but numbers is Sieve are second class citizens and they can't be created from a variable. (which might be retrieved using Sieve metadata, for example).

>                      [:bymode "notify"|"return"] [:bytrace]]
>                   

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
         
          Shepherd: Cyrus Daboo  I have
          personally reviewed this document and believe it ready for
          submission to the IESG.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?
         
          It has had adequate review from WG members. Not from non-WG
          members. No concerns with the nature of those reviews.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?
         
          No.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.
         
          No concerns with this document.

  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?
         
          There is strong WG consensus behind this.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)
         
          No.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
         
          ID nits were checked. Warnings appear in regard to the license and disclaimer but those are OK.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
         
          References are split into two sections.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
         
          Yes.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?
         
          Yes.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up?  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary
            Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
            and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
            an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
            or introduction.

          Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
            example, was there controversy about particular points or
            were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
            rough?

          Document Quality
            Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
            significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
            implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
            merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
            e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
            conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
            there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
            what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
            review, on what date was the request posted?

          Personnel
            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
            Responsible Area Director? Is an IANA expert needed?

Technical Summary

The SIEVE notary extension adds actions to allow access to additional SMTP envelope information and to set such additional information for out bound email.

The security considerations section covers several identified security
concerns.

Working Group Summary

This document has been discussed and reviewed in the SIEVE Working Group.
There is consensus in the Working Group to publish this document
as a Proposed Standard.

Document Quality

At least one partial implementation of this specification already exist. Several other implementers have indicated they will implement this extension as time allows.

Personal

Document Shepherd: Cyrus Daboo
AD: Alexey Melnikov