Sieve Vacation Extension: "Seconds" Parameter
RFC 6131
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
03 | (System) | Notify list changed from sieve-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-seconds@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jari Arkko |
|
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu |
|
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel |
|
2011-07-14
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue. |
|
2011-07-13
|
03 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2010-11-29
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2010-11-24
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
|
2010-11-24
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2010-11-24
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2010-11-24
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
|
2010-11-24
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2010-11-24
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2010-11-24
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-11-24
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Approval announcement text regenerated |
|
2010-11-24
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2010-11-24
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Jari Arkko |
|
2010-11-23
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2010-11-23
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-seconds-03.txt |
|
2010-11-19
|
03 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-11-18 |
|
2010-11-18
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation. |
|
2010-11-18
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] The Gen-ART Review by Suresh Krishnan on 16-Nov-2010 indicates the need for clarity about the interaction between :days and :seconds. The … [Ballot comment] 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. |
|
2010-11-18
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2010-11-18
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2010-11-18
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Review by Ari Keränen: 2. The ':seconds' Parameter If 0 is specified and used, it means that all auto-replies are sent, … [Ballot comment] 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? |
|
2010-11-18
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] I have reviewed this draft and it is a useful and well written specification. However, I have a concern about the allowed use … [Ballot discuss] I have reviewed this draft and it is a useful and well written specification. However, I have a concern about the allowed use of zero for the seconds/days parameter. In my mind that is potentially creating a lot of extra traffic, may lead into loops (see Ari's review below), and most importantly the change is not well justified. The draft points to draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply but that draft too provides no explanation. I would like to see a good justification for this change or dropping it. |
|
2010-11-18
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2010-11-18
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Review by Ari Keränen: 2. The ':seconds' Parameter If 0 is specified and used, it means that all auto-replies are sent, … [Ballot comment] 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? |
|
2010-11-18
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2010-11-18
|
03 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2010-11-18
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2010-11-18
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2010-11-18
|
03 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2010-11-18
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2010-11-18
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Note]: 'Cyrus Daboo is the document shepherd.' added |
|
2010-11-17
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2010-11-17
|
03 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2010-11-17
|
03 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] The OPS-DIR review performed by Nevil Brownlee raised the following issue which I believe needs to be addressed: 3. Does the proposed approach … [Ballot discuss] The OPS-DIR review performed by Nevil Brownlee raised the following issue which I believe needs to be addressed: 3. Does the proposed approach have any scaling issues that could affect usability for large scale operation? Allowing shorter (measured in seconds rather than days) may increase the number of messages being processed; operators should consider how much storage/database they need to support sieve processing for their users. |
|
2010-11-17
|
03 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
|
2010-11-17
|
03 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2010-11-16
|
03 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2010-11-13
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I am really surprised at the granularity proposed in this document. Do you really propose that there is a requirement to generate a … [Ballot comment] 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? |
|
2010-11-13
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] Thanks for this little draft which is clear and easy to understand. I have just a couple of small points I would like … [Ballot discuss] Thanks for this little draft which is clear and easy to understand. I have just a couple of small points I would like to discuss before moving to No Objection for this draft. The Introduciton gives a very odd perspective on this work. You appear to be saying that the motivation is the duration of the vacation event, but I don't see how that is relevant to the period for out-of-office replies. since surely a new vacation event resets the clock. Can you persuade me that this is the real motivation for the work, or modify the text in that section? --- The use of RFC 3834 in Section 4 looks normative to me. |
|
2010-11-13
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
|
2010-11-12
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tina Tsou. |
|
2010-11-11
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-11-18 |
|
2010-11-11
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
|
2010-11-08
|
03 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2010-11-01
|
03 | Amanda Baber | IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action that is required to be completed. In the Sieve Extensions registry located … IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action that is required to be completed. In the Sieve Extensions registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions the following sieve extension is to be added to the registry: Capability name: vacation-seconds Description: adds the ":seconds" parameter to the Sieve Vacation extension. Implementations that support this MUST also support "vacation". RFC number: [ RFC-to-be ] Contact address: The Sieve discussion list <sieve@ietf.org> IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. |
|
2010-10-29
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
|
2010-10-29
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
|
2010-10-25
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
|
2010-10-25
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-10-25
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | (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? Shepherd: Cyrus Daboo <mailto:cyrus@daboo.name> 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? It has had review from WG members. Not from non-WG members. No concerns with the nature of those 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. (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? There is WG consensus behind this. (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. (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]. References are split into two sections. (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 The SIEVE vacation seconds extension adds an option to the vacation extension to specify a time in seconds. This is particular useful when used in conjunction with other "presence" related options in SIEVE. The security considerations section covers several identified security concerns. Working Group Summary This document has been discussed and reviewed in the SIEVE Working Group. There is consensus in the Working Group to publish this document as a Proposed Standard. Document Quality At least one implementation of the feature exists. Several implementers have indicated they will implement this extension as time allows. Personal Document Shepherd: Cyrus Daboo <mailto:cyrus@daboo.name> AD: Alexey Melnikov <mailto:alexey.melnikov@isode.com> |
|
2010-10-25
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
|
2010-10-25
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot has been issued by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2010-10-25
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-10-25
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Last Call was requested by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2010-10-25
|
03 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2010-10-25
|
03 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2010-10-25
|
03 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2010-10-25
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2010-10-25
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Draft Added by Alexey Melnikov in state AD Evaluation |
|
2010-10-13
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-seconds-02.txt |
|
2010-10-12
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-seconds-01.txt |
|
2010-06-23
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-seconds-00.txt |