(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
This document specifies a Sieve extension. Per RFC 5228 section 6.2, such
extensions must be published as either standards track or experimental.
Experimental status seems inappropriate given the straightforward nature
of this extension.
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
(2) 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:
This document defines a new test command "duplicate" for the "Sieve"
email filtering language. This test adds the ability to detect
duplications. The main application for this new test is handling
duplicate deliveries commonly caused by mailing list subscriptions or
redirected mail addresses. The detection is normally performed by
matching the message ID to an internal list of message IDs from
previously delivered messages. For more complex applications, the
"duplicate" test can also use the content of a specific header or
other parts of the message.
Working Group Summary:
The document was discussed by a few participants within the Applications
Area Working Group and it has the consensus of the working group. The
document was also discussed on the Sieve mailing list, firstname.lastname@example.org
There are at least two implementations of this extension. Reviews have
been done at various times by:
Ned Freed <email@example.com>
Kristin Hubner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Alexey Melnikov <email@example.com>
Tom Petch <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Aaron Stone <email@example.com>
Document Shepard: Ned Freed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Responsible Area Director: Barry Leiba < email@example.com>
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
The Document Shepherd has reviewed every revision and has updated his own
implementation of the extension accordingly.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML,
or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
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
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79
have already been filed. If not, explain why?
The author is in compliance with BCPs 78 and 79.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(9) 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?
The interest level isn't high, but there appears to be consensus.
(10) 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 publicly available.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
The only nit was a comment about coding tags. The only code in the
document is example Sieve scripts.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
(14) 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 plan for their completion?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part
of the document where the relationship of this document to the other
RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain
why the WG considers it unnecessary.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body
of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document
makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA
registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries
include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the
registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are
defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested
(see RFC 5226).
This specification defines a Sieve extension. The IANA Considerations
contain the necessary registration template for the extension. The
registration has been checked and looks ok.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as
XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
All of the Sieve examples have been run through a Sieve parser and
have been found to be valid.