Sieve Vacation Extension: "Seconds" Parameter
RFC 6131

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Alexey Melnikov Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-11-18)
No email
send info
Review by Ari Keränen:

2.  The ':seconds' Parameter

    If 0 is specified and used, it means that all auto-replies are sent,
    and no attempt is made to suppress consecutive replies.  This changes
    the base vacation specification, which does not allow ":days 0"; the
    change is necessary to allow operation of an auto-responder (see
    [I-D.ietf-sieve-autoreply]).

Why is there need to change "days" to allow 0; wouldn't it be enough to 
allow 0 only for "seconds" and thus not (potentially) break backwards 
compatibility for the "days" parameter? Or if that was not the 
intention, the text is a bit misleading.


Regarding security concerns, there could be a problem with two e-mail 
accounts that have set the delay (close) to 0, and one of them does not 
properly implement the "Auto-submitted" header field. If you then send 
an e-mail from one of the addresses to the other, wouldn't that create 
an infinite loop executing at high speed sending e-mail back and forth?

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-11-13)
No email
send info
I am really surprised at the granularity proposed in this document. Do you really propose that there is a requirement to generate a vacation response every 27 seconds, but not every 26 seconds?

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2010-11-18 for -)
No email
send info
  The Gen-ART Review by Suresh Krishnan on 16-Nov-2010 indicates the
  need for clarity about the interaction between :days and :seconds.
  The :seconds maximum only applies if :seconds is specified. And,
  the :days maximum only applies if :days is specified.  Further,
  :seconds and :days parameters are mutually exclusive.

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection