Skip to main content

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