Sieve Email Filtering: Environment Extension
RFC 5183
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14 |
05 | (System) | Notify list changed from ned.freed@mrochek.com, draft-freed-sieve-environment@ietf.org,alexey.melnikov@isode.com to alexey.melnikov@isode.com |
2012-08-22 |
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen |
2008-05-30 |
05 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
2008-05-30 |
05 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5183 Alexey Melnikov is document shepherd' added by Cindy Morgan |
2008-05-29 |
05 | (System) | RFC published |
2008-05-06 |
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2008-05-02 |
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2008-05-02 |
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2008-05-01 |
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2008-04-30 |
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2008-04-29 |
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2008-04-29 |
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2008-04-29 |
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2008-04-29 |
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-04-28 |
05 | Chris Newman | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Chris Newman |
2008-04-28 |
05 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Pasi Eronen |
2008-04-28 |
05 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Pasi Eronen |
2008-04-25 |
05 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-04-24 |
2008-04-24 |
05 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2008-04-24 |
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2008-04-24 |
05 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot comment] Section 6: Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Shouldn't this say: IETF, Sieve WG mailing list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> To make it clear that it … [Ballot comment] Section 6: Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Shouldn't this say: IETF, Sieve WG mailing list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> To make it clear that it is an activity of the IETF? So that one knows where to go when this address doesn't work. |
2008-04-24 |
05 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-04-24 |
05 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2008-04-24 |
05 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot discuss] The document goes much beyond providing information about the Sieve interpreter environment; it also provides information about the SMTP (or similar) connection used … [Ballot discuss] The document goes much beyond providing information about the Sieve interpreter environment; it also provides information about the SMTP (or similar) connection used for delivering a particular message. This is really a property associated with the message, not the interpreter. Even if both of these features are provided in the same document, the abstract, introduction, and other places should more accurately describe the scope. Defining two separate test names would clarify the situation considerably; at the very least, Section 4.1 should be split to two subsections, one for each type of information. |
2008-04-24 |
05 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2008-04-23 |
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2008-04-23 |
05 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2008-04-23 |
05 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2008-04-23 |
05 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2008-04-23 |
05 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2008-04-22 |
05 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
2008-04-20 |
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. |
2008-04-19 |
05 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2008-04-18 |
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2008-04-16 |
05 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Chris Newman |
2008-04-16 |
05 | Chris Newman | Ballot has been issued by Chris Newman |
2008-04-16 |
05 | Chris Newman | Created "Approve" ballot |
2008-04-16 |
05 | Chris Newman | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-04-24 by Chris Newman |
2008-04-16 |
05 | Chris Newman | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Chris Newman |
2008-04-11 |
05 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-04-02 |
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "Sieve Extensions" registry located at … IANA Last Call comments: Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "Sieve Extensions" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions Capability name: environment Description: The "environment" extension provides a new environment test that can be used to implement scripts that behave differently when moved from one system to another or otherwise operated in different contexts. RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04] Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Action 2: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the registry "Sieve Environment Names" at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD Registration Procedures: First Come First Served Initial contents of this registry will be: Note: Extensions designed for interoperable use SHOULD be defined in standards track or experimental RFCs. Groups of standardized items MAY choose to use a common name prefix of the form "name.". Items not defined in a standards track or experimental RFC MUST have a name that begins with the "vnd." prefix and this prefix SHOULD be followed by the name of the vendor or product, such as "vnd.acme.rocket-sled-status". The following template is to be used for registering new Sieve environment item names with IANA. To: iana@iana.org Subject: Registration of new Sieve environment item Capability name: [the string for use in the 'environment' test] Description: [a brief description of the semantics of the value the item returns] RFC number: [for extensions published as RFCs] Contact address: [email and/or physical address to contact for additional information] Registry: Capability name: domain Description: The primary DNS domain associated with the Sieve execution context, usually but not always a proper suffix of the host name. RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04] Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Capability name: evaluation-time Description: Time at which this Sieve processing is being performed. RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04] Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Capability name: host Description: The fully-qualified domain name of the host where the Sieve script is executing. RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04] Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Capability name: name Description: The product name associated with the Sieve interpreter. RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04] Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Capability name: remote-host Description: Host name of remote SMTP client, if applicable and available. RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04] Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Capability name: remote-ip Description: IP address of remote SMTP client, if applicable and available. RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04] Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Capability name: version Description: The product version associated with the Sieve interpreter. RFC number: [RFC-freed-sieve-environment-04] Contact address: Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
2008-03-28 |
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-freed-sieve-environment-05.txt |
2008-03-20 |
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2008-03-20 |
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2008-03-14 |
05 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2008-03-14 |
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2008-03-13 |
05 | Chris Newman | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Chris Newman |
2008-03-13 |
05 | Chris Newman | AD Review of draft-freed-sieve-environment-04: While this is of sufficient quality for last call, I recommend two changes prior to IESG review: 1. Please make the … AD Review of draft-freed-sieve-environment-04: While this is of sufficient quality for last call, I recommend two changes prior to IESG review: 1. Please make the definition of "product version" more precise. If it's simply a numeric version number than it will create interoperability problems. If it includes the product name then that wouldn't be a problem. 2. While we could wait for IANA to give an opinion, I don't think the IANA considerations section is clear enough. A "SHOULD" is open to interpretation and thus would require assignment of a designated expert and guidelines for the expert would be helpful. So either make it a MUST, or we need a designated expert to make the judgement call. |
2008-03-13 |
05 | Chris Newman | Last Call was requested by Chris Newman |
2008-03-13 |
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-03-13 |
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-03-13 |
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-03-13 |
05 | Chris Newman | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … (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? Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> is the document shepherd for this document. The document is ready for publication. (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 is an individual submission and is a normative dependency for one of the Lemonade WG documents. The document was adequately reviewed on the Sieve mailing list and there are no concerns about the depth of the reviews. (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 concerns. (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 IPR disclosure was filed for 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 is an individual submission, but it was reviewed on the Sieve WG mailing list. There is at least 1 existing implementation and at least 3 more implementations are planned. (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? IDnits 2.08.04 was used to verify the document. It only reports 2 warnings and 2 comments, which are incorrect. (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]. Yes, references are properly split. There are no downward normative references. (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? IANA considerations section exists and is clearly defined. It registers one new Sieve extension in the Sieve extensions registry, plus define one new registry. (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? The document doesn't use any of the formal languages listed above. (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. This document describes the "environment" extension to the Sieve email filtering language. The "environment" extension gives Sieve access to information about the environment where the Sieve interpreter is running. This document is targeted to become a Proposed Standard. 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? This is an individual submission, but the document was extensively reviewed on the Sieve WG mailing list. There was strong support in favor of this document from implementors. There were some discussions about list of initial attributes specified in the document, but most of them were centered around naming. This document is a normative dependency of the IMAP Sieve draft, which is a Lemonade WG document. 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? At least 5 people have reviewed the current or earlier versions of the document. Posted comments were addressed in the latest revision. There is 1 existing implementation and at least 3 more are planned. * * Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> is the document shepherd for this document. |
2008-03-13 |
05 | Chris Newman | [Note]: 'Alexey Melnikov is document shepherd' added by Chris Newman |
2008-03-13 |
05 | Chris Newman | Draft Added by Chris Newman in state Publication Requested |
2008-03-13 |
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-freed-sieve-environment-04.txt |
2008-03-10 |
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-freed-sieve-environment-03.txt |
2008-02-25 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-freed-sieve-environment-02.txt |
2007-10-08 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-freed-sieve-environment-01.txt |
2007-09-23 |
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2007-03-29 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-freed-sieve-environment-00.txt |