Sieve Email Filtering: Delivering to Special-Use Mailboxes
draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-05

[Ballot comment]

Thanks to everyone who worked on this document. I have two minor suggestions for
improvement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§1:

>  It also adds
>  the ability to file messages into an anonymous personal mailbox that
>  has a particular special-use attribute assigned using a ":specialuse"
>  argument for the "fileinto" command [SIEVE].

I was perplexed by the use of "anonymous" (here and elsewhere in the document),
expecting it to be a term of art defined in some other RFC. I poked around at
the plausible references and didn't find anything.

After reading the rest of the document, I *think* the notion is that you're
talking about a mailbox that is identified by its special-use attribute rather
than its name. If that's the intention, it might be clearer to simply say
"unnamed;" or, barring that, perhaps clarify in the Introduction what is meant
by "anonymous."

(Yes, I get that "unnamed" and "anonymous" are technically synonyms, but
"anonymous" typically is used as a term of art corresponding to personal
anonymity in the context of communications, making its use confusing in this
context without any additional explanation)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2:

>  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>  document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].

Please use RFC 8174 boilerplate.

[Ballot comment]
I'm balloting Yes because this document seems like it is going to do the
right thing in helping to keep sieve up to date with IMAP.  But I do still
have a few comments.

Section 1

  Commonly, several mailboxes in an IMAP message store [IMAP] have a
  special use; e.g.  it is where the user's draft messages are stored,
  where a copy of sent messages are kept, or it is where spam messages
  are filed automatically at delivery.  [...]

nits: there's a singular/plural mismatch between "several mailboxes" and
"it"; there should also be a comma after "e.g.".

Section 4

                    Implementations SHOULD handle an invalid special-
  use flag in the same way as an invalid mailbox name is handled.  The

(Does "invalid" mean "syntactically invalid" or "nonexistent" or something
else?  Presumably this is just a sieve convention that I've not been
exposed to yet...)

                                                  However, while the
  set of mailboxes to which the involved special-use flags are assigned
  remains unchanged, implementations SHOULD ensure that the mailbox
  choice is made consistently, so that the same mailbox is used every
  time.  Conversely, the chosen mailbox MAY change once the special-use
  flag assignments that are relevant for the mailbox choice are changed
  (usually by user interaction).

  If delivery to the special-use mailbox fails for reasons not relating
  to its existence, the Sieve interpreter MUST NOT subsequently attempt
  delivery in the indicated default mailbox as a fall-back.  Instead,
  it MUST proceed exactly as it does in case the ":specialuse" argument
  is absent and delivery to the mailbox named by its positional
  argument fails.  This prevents the situation where messages are
  unexpectedly spread over two mailboxes in case transient or
  intermittent delivery failures occur.

It seems a little inconsistent to only avoid spreading messages over two
mailboxes as a SHOULD for when multiple options exist but a MUST for
transient delivery failure.  But presumably this has already been
well-discussed in the WG and I shouldn't try to reopen it.

Section 4.2

The IMAP example should probably use RFC 6761 domains.

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Sieve Extensions registry located at:

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

a single new sieve extension will be registered as follows:

Capability name: special-use
Description: adds a test for checking whether an IMAP special-use attribute is assigned for a particular mailbox or any mailbox, and it adds the ability to file messages into an anonymous mailbox that has a particular IMAP special-use attribute assigned
RFC number: [ RFC-to-be ]
Contact address: [Sieve_discussion_list]
Registration date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action 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.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-12-20):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Jiankang Yao , extra@ietf.org, yaojk@cnnic.cn, extra-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Sieve Email Filtering: Delivering to Special-Use Mailboxes) 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: Delivering to Special-Use Mailboxes'
  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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-12-20. 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


  The SPECIAL-USE capability of the IMAP protocol (RFC 6154) allows
  clients to identify special-use mailboxes; e.g., where draft or sent
  messages should be put.  This simplifies client configuration.  In
  contrast, the Sieve mail filtering language (RFC 5228) currently has
  no such capability.  This memo defines a Sieve extension that fills
  this gap: it adds a test for checking whether a special-use attribute
  is assigned for a particular mailbox or any mailbox, and it adds the
  ability to file messages into an anonymous mailbox that has a
  particular special-use attribute assigned.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use/ballot/


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

Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04

1. This document is being requested as a Proposed Standard because it
adds new capabilities to existing Standards Track document(RFC 5228).
The request type is indicated in the title page header.

2.

Technical Summary

  The SPECIAL-USE capability of the IMAP protocol (RFC 6154) allows
  clients to identify special-use mailboxes; e.g., where draft or sent
  messages should be put.  This simplifies client configuration.  In
  contrast, the Sieve mail filtering language (RFC 5228) currently has
  no such capability.  This memo defines a Sieve extension that fills
  this gap: it adds a test for checking whether a special-use attribute
  is assigned for a particular mailbox or any mailbox, and it adds the
  ability to file messages into an anonymous mailbox that has a
  particular special-use attribute assigned.

Working Group Summary

  The EXTRA WG meeting in IETF 102 had detailed discussion about this draft. The authors had updated it
  accordingly.
  Alexey reviewed the draft in detail and gave some significant comments.
  All identified issues were reflected in the
  new version of the draft.
  The WG has looked throught this document in detail. It passed WGLC.
  The EXTRA WG meeting in IETF 103 thought that it is ready to move forward.

Document Quality

  The document is in good shape and is ready to be published.
  Alexey Melnikov has indicated that he has implemented it.
  He gave some comments and suggestions based on implementation experiences.
  After WG's discussion, some comments and suggestions have been updated into the new version of this document.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd - Jiankang Yao (EXTRA co-chair)
  Responsible Area Director - Alexey Melnikov


3. The Document Shepherd has read the document through in detail and
think that it is ready to go.

4. There has no concerns.

5. There is no review required for the document by other areas, it's
very self-contained.

6. There are no concerns with this document that IESG should be aware of.

7. There have been no IPR disclosures for this spec.

8. There have been no IPR disclosures for this spec.

9. The WG consensus is very solid, while not everybody spoke, it was
clear that the entire group understood and agreed with the idea and
the method chosen.

10. There has been no discontent.

11. The ID nits tool shows the following:

"
if you have code  sections in the document, please surround them with ''  and  '' lines.
"


    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).


12. This document doesn't define anything which needs formal review
outside the working group.

13. All references have been identified as either normative or
informative.

14. All normative references are published standards.

15. There are no downward normative references references.

16. The publication of this document does not change the status of any
existing RFCs.

17. The IANA considerations ask for the following item to be added to the registry:

  IANA is requested to add the new entry spcified in section 8 to the "Sieve Extensions". 

18. None of the IANA registries mentioned require Expert Review.

19. Have checked the formal language. According to the ID nits suggestion, the authors may consider to
surround the Pseudocode in section 6 with ''  and  '' lines.