Sieve Email Filtering: Extension for Processing Calendar Attachments
draft-ietf-extra-processimip-09

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-extra-processimip and RFC 9671, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specificaition. I didn't find any transport protocol related issues.

I would request to add consequences of "processcalendar" action not removing the alamrs as it says the action SHOULD remove alarms. What are the reasonble exeptions that can waive this ask and what are the potential consequences if this alarms are not removed before applying the action?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Dan Harkins for the secdir review. 

I will reiterate some of Eric V's comments (and one of Dan's):

snip..................

Section 4 contains a SHOULD but nothing is said about consequence(s) if the SHOULD is bypassed.

The document is great in the specification, but it lacks some explanations sometimes (the "why").

Sections 4.4 to 4.9 contain no BCP 14 language, was it the authors' intent ?

snip......................

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document. And thanks to Bron Gondwana for the shepherd's write-up including the consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs.

"UID" is used by never defined (its meaning is rather obvious but why not being specific ?).

Section 4 contains a SHOULD but nothing is said about consequence(s) if the SHOULD is bypassed.

The document is great in the specification, but it lacks some explanations sometimes (the "why").

Sections 4.4 to 4.9 contain no BCP 14 language, was it the authors' intent ?

Section 5 has a rather marketing term "highly scalable", as this section will be removed before publication, it is OK but still unusual ;-)

I just checked this and it looks like the following field is missing
from the registration template:

  Capabilities:  Name of one or more Sieve capabilities associated with
      the Sieve action being registered

(it should appear after References).

Once this is fixed, this would be fine to approve.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-extra-processimip-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the Sieve Extensions registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions/

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

Capability name: processcalendar
Description: Adds the "processcalendar" action command to add and update items on a user's calendars.
RFC Number: [ RFC-to-be ]
Contact address: The Sieve discussion list
Registration date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

Second, in the Sieve Action registry, also located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions/

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

Name: processcalendar
Description: Add and update items on a user's calendars
References: [ RFC-to-be ]
Capabilities:
Action Interactions: This action is incompatible with "reject" and "ereject" actions
Cancels Implicit Keep? No
Can Use With IMAP Events? No
Comments:

IANA Question --> What should the entry in the "Capabilities" field be for this registration?

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-06-13):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: brong@fastmailteam.com, draft-ietf-extra-processimip@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Sieve Email Filtering: Extension for Processing Calendar Attachments) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Email mailstore and eXtensions To
Revise or Amend WG (extra) to consider the following document: - 'Sieve Email
Filtering: Extension for Processing Calendar Attachments'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-06-13. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes the "processcalendar" extension to the Sieve
  email filtering language.  The "processcalendar" extension gives
  Sieve the ability to process machine-readable calendar data that is
  encapsulated in an email message using Multipurpose Internet Mail
  Extensions (MIME).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-processimip/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

It's a small working group, but broad agreement from those there.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

It underwent a couple of rounds of redesign but there was nothing rough about it,
just improving the engineering.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Right now it's implemented in the Cyrus IMAP server and in production use at
Fastmail.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The main crossover is with CALEXT.  One of the Authors is also a prolific author
of CALEXT documents with deep calendaring experience.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There are no formal reviews required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No yang.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

There are snippets of Sieve, which match test cases in the Cyrus IMAPd test suite.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, it is.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

No additional area reviews required.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard, as it extends Sieve (RFC 5228), which is a Proposed Standard.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, and they are unaware of any IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There is one external reference, but it's to CalConnect, which is another standards
body recognised by the IETF.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, they look correct.  There are many informative references documenting interactions
with other sieve extensions however they are informative because if you don't
implement them then it's not necessary to read those.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

CalConnect specs are public.  All other references are IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA instructions are clear.  It updates existing registries, but does not
create any new registries.  The IANA registrations match the rest of the document.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

It's a small working group, but broad agreement from those there.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

It underwent a couple of rounds of redesign but there was nothing rough about it,
just improving the engineering.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Right now it's implemented in the Cyrus IMAP server and in production use at
Fastmail.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The main crossover is with CALEXT.  One of the Authors is also a prolific author
of CALEXT documents with deep calendaring experience.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There are no formal reviews required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No yang.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

There are snippets of Sieve, which match test cases in the Cyrus IMAPd test suite.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, it is.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

No additional area reviews required.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard, as it extends Sieve (RFC 5228), which is a Proposed Standard.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, and they are unaware of any IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There is one external reference, but it's to CalConnect, which is another standards
body recognised by the IETF.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, they look correct.  There are many informative references documenting interactions
with other sieve extensions however they are informative because if you don't
implement them then it's not necessary to read those.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

CalConnect specs are public.  All other references are IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA instructions are clear.  It updates existing registries, but does not
create any new registries.  The IANA registrations match the rest of the document.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/