Sieve Extension for Converting Messages before Delivery
draft-ietf-sieve-convert-06

The following message was sent after the Last Call:

Message-ID: <4F43FF5C.6060003@qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:32:28 -0600
From: Pete Resnick
To: IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Conclusion of Last Call for draft-ietf-sieve-convert and
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message

I wanted to inform the community of the results of the second Last Call
issued for draft-ietf-sieve-convert and
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message. To remind you of the circumstances:
After these two documents were approved by the IESG and sent on to the
RFC Editor, an IPR disclosure was made pertaining to each of them
indicating that one of the document editors for both documents was also
the listed inventor for the disclosed patent. The disclosures were made
by the document editor's employer and indicate that the date of the
patent filings was prior to the adoption of these two drafts by the
SIEVE working group. The RFC Editor was asked to suspend their work on
the documents, and a second Last Call was made.

After reviewing discussions in the SIEVE WG and on the IETF mailing
list, the chairs have decided (and I support) that, because of the
failure to disclose the IPR as required by BCP 79 (RFC 3979), and as per
RFC 2418 Section 6.1, the following actions are appropriate and will be
taken:

- The document editor in question is no longer a document editor for
these two documents.
- The person's name will be removed from the front page of the documents
and from the Authors' Address section.
- The person's name will be added to the Acknowledgments section of both
documents to identify that he did contribute text to the drafts.
- The RFC Editor will be asked to continue processing and publication of
these drafts as RFCs.

We will be notifying the RFC Editor of this decision presently.

Meanwhile, the employer of the document editor in question has made
followup disclosures on each of the documents, saying that they
"covenant not to assert any such claim against any party for making,
using, selling, offering for sale or importing a product that implements
the corresponding part of the specification." The full text of the
disclosures can be seen here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1680/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1681/

pr
--
Pete Resnick

IANA has already completed the actions for this document and understands
that no changes are required.

Specifically, IANA has registered the following Sieve Extension:

convert
adds a new Sieve test and action that enable Sieve
delivered.
[RFC-ietf-sieve-convert-06]
[Sieve_discussion_list]

Please see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Second Last Call:  (Sieve Extension for Converting Messages Before Delivery) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Sieve Mail Filtering Language WG
(sieve) to consider the following document:
- 'Sieve Extension for Converting Messages Before Delivery'
  as a Proposed Standard

Last calls were earlier issued on version -05 of this document and this
document was approved by the IESG on 2011-12-01. Subsequently,
an IPR disclosure statement for this draft was submitted.
This Second Last Call is intended to determine whether the community
is still comfortable with publication of this document in light of the IPR statement.
The relevant IPR statement is available at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1657/

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 2012-02-08. 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 how the "CONVERT" IMAP extension can be used
  within the Sieve mail filtering language to transform messages before
  final delivery.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-convert/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-convert/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1657/

[Ballot comment]
Ari Keränen's review:

For people not that familiar with IMAP extensions and Sieve the abstract
of the document is not not immediately clear. Maybe clarify this with:

s/IMAP CONVERT/the "CONVERT" IMAP extension/
s/Sieve/Sieve mail filtering language/

[Ballot comment]
Section 2

  If a "convert" action cannot be completed -- perhaps because the
  conversion failed, or because the requested conversion is not
  available -- the message MUST remain unchanged, and the script
  processing continues.  In particular, no error condition is raised,
  and no partial conversions are allowed.

To be clear, you mean '...MUST remain unchanged by that "convert"
action,...'
and
'...and no partial conversions due to a single "convert" action are
allowed.'

As written it implies no change is allowed (and changes already made
must be unpicked).

And (for my own clarity) this means that if there are two conversions
that would be carried out by a single convert command, the first
replacement is successful and the second fails, the result must not
include either replacement.

Maybe it would help to really spell this out.

---

I think you might comment on infinite recursions.

Suppose in your example 3.1 you had written

      require ["convert"];
      convert "image/tiff" "image/tiff" ["pix-x=320","pix-y=240"];

(as I see in the middle of 3.4)

It is easy to see how this might be interpreted as an infinite loop,
but also easy to cover the case with a line of text that says the
output of any conversion must be considered as atomic so that the
conversion never applies to its own output.

It would probably be possible to come up with worse (explosive)
scenarios.

[Ballot comment]
Does rfc5259 support doing things in loops? If not, then it
seems like this makes the potential DoS on the server worse
to the extent that the client can craft a CPU intensive loop.
If applicable, then that should be noted.

Upon approval of this document, IANA will register the following Sieve
Extension at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions

Capability name: convert
Description: adds a new Sieve test and action that enable Sieve
scripts to perform data conversions on the message being
delivered.
RFC number: this RFC
Contact address: The Sieve discussion list

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Sieve Extension for Converting Messages Before Delivery) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Sieve Mail Filtering Language WG
(sieve) to consider the following document:
- 'Sieve Extension for Converting Messages Before Delivery'
  as a 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 2011-11-09. 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 how IMAP CONVERT can be used within Sieve to
  transform messages before final delivery.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-convert/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-convert/


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

  (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?
         
          This extension started as an individual submission in 2008 and
          was adopted as a WG document in 2010. The basic premise
          has remained the same throughout all revisions of the
          document.
         
          This extension adds a new combined action and test to SIEVE to
          allow message parts to be converted to other types during
          delivery. One new behavior here is that this extension creates a
          new combined test and action. This is something new for SIEVE
          (though allowed by the base spec), and implementors were
          explicitly asked to comment on whether this approach was viable -
          with a positive response. The document has not received any
          reviews from non-WG members. However, many of the existing WG
          members had participated in the Lemonade WG IMAP CONVERT work, on
          which the SIEVE convert extension is heavily based, so from that
          standpoint we do have review from existing IMAP implementors.

  (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?
         
          This document has gone through several revisions within the
          WG.
         
          This specification has had detailed review from a core group
          of WG participants over its last few revisions, but has been
          reviewed by others over its lifetime and discussed at several
          IETF meetings.


  (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 - no problems.

  (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].
         
          A normative references section exists. There are no informative
          references. All references are to existing RFCs.

  (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

  This document describes how IMAP CONVERT can be used within Sieve to
  transform messages before final delivery.

Working Group Summary

    This extension started as an individual submission in 2008 and was
    adopted as a WG document in 2010. The basic premise has remained the
    same throughout all revisions of the document.

    This extension adds a new combined action and test to SIEVE to allow
    message parts to be converted to other types during delivery. One new
    behavior here is that this extension creates a new combined test and
    action. This is something new for SIEVE (though allowed by the base
    spec), and implementors were explicitly asked to comment on whether this
    approach was viable - with a positive response. The document has not
    received any reviews from non-WG members. However, many of the existing
    WG members had participated in the Lemonade WG IMAP CONVERT work, on
    which the SIEVE convert extension is heavily based, so from that
    standpoint we do have review from existing IMAP implementors.

Document Quality

    There are no known implementations of this extension at present. Various
    vendors have expressed interest in implementing this extension, however
    it is not currently a top priority for any of them.

Personnel

Document Shepherd: Cyrus Daboo
AD: Pete Resnick