Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-sieve-include-07.txt

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Stephan Bosch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Op 8-7-2011 8:57, Aaron Stone schreef:
>>
>> Uploaded -08 with these changes, thank you!
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Stephan Bosch<[email protected]>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> ## ISSUE 2:
>>>
>>> While I was working on this, I thought of something that is not
>>> explicitly
>>> addressed in the document (correct me if I'm wrong). Initially I had
>>> forgotten to check for the validity of the global command's value
>>> argument
>>> and now I am wondering: what is the exact syntax of that argument? Logic
>>> dictates that this is simply an 'identifier' as used in RFC5229 and
>>> defined
>>> in RFC5228, since only simple variables make any sense.
>
> [...]
>>>
>>> Although the above is pretty far-fetched and stupid, I think it is better
>>> when this is excluded explicitly by stating the argument's exact syntax
>>> instead of calling it only a 'variable name' (much like Section 4 in
>>> RFC5229).
>>
>> Is this the paragraph that needs work?
>>
>>    A variable has global scope in all scripts that have declared it with
>>    the "global" command.  If a script uses that variable name without
>>    declaring it global, the name specifies a separate, non-global
>>    variable within that script.
>
> No, I would think the first paragraph of Section 3.4.1. is the best place to
> mention this:
>
>   The "global" command contains a string list argument that defines one
>   or more names of variables to be stored in the global variable space.
>
> 'Names of variables' is in my opinion a bit too vague.  As an example, the
> "set" command specified in Section 4 of RFC 5229 defines the following:
>
>   The "set" action stores the specified value in the variable
>   identified by name.  The name MUST be a constant string and conform
>   to the syntax of variable-name.  Match variables cannot be set.  A
>   namespace cannot be used unless an extension explicitly allows its
>   use in "set".  An invalid name MUST be detected as a syntax error.
>
> I would change the first paragraph as follows:
>
>   The "global" command has a string list argument that defines one
>   or more names of variables to be stored in the global variable space.
>   Each name MUST be a constant string and conform to the syntax of
>   variable-name as defined in [RFC5229], Section 3. Match variables
>   cannot be specified and namespace prefixes are not allowed. An invalid
>   name MUST be detected as a syntax error.
>
> (I didn't even consider the constant string part until just now)
>
>>> Also the syntax of the sub-items of the global namespace should be
>>> defined explicitly.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean here.
>
> Basically the same restrictions apply in this case. The paragraph directly
> after the example in Section 3.4.2 states:
>
>  Variables declared global and variables accessed via the global
>  namespace MUST be one and the same.
>
> Similar to the global command, you can add here that the "global" namespace
> has no sub-namespaces (e.g. set "global.data.from" "[email protected]"; is not
> allowed ) and that the variable-name part is always an identifier (so set
> "global.12" "whatever"; is not allowed).

Great language. Posting -09 now.

>>> ## 'ISSUE' 3:
>>>
>>> I've had a few request and questions from users about having an optional
>>> include, i.e. an include directive that is skipped without error if (and
>>> only if) the to-be-included script does not exist. Do you find this a
>>> useful
>>> feature? If yes, is it possible to add this to the main draft now or
>>> should
>>> there be an 'include-optional' extension that adds an ':optional' tag to
>>> the
>>> include command?
>>
>> Oh, huh. I suppose at least a hack around this would be an empty script?
>
> Yes, but that will not be adequate in many situations. Do more people have
> thoughts on this?
>
> Regards,
>
> Stephan.
>
>
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve