Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
    Proposed standard.

    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:

    Technical Summary:

      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,
    Document Quality:

      There are at least two implementations of this extension. Reviews have
      been done at various times by:

        Ned Freed <>
        Kristin Hubner <>
        Alexey Melnikov <>
        Tom Petch <>
        Aaron Stone <>


      Document Shepard: Ned Freed <>
      Responsible Area Director: Barry Leiba <>

(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
    concerns here.

      No concerns.

(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 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.