Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-sieve-imap-sieve-08.txt

On 9/13/2012 9:05 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Oy.
> These comments are VERY late, and the document has already gone
> through IESG approval.  I'll look at them and see what I think we can
> address now.

My previous comments were late already and I wonder why I missed these ones.

> I also have a question for the working group:
> In his IESG evaluation review, Robert Sparks has this comment:
>
> << The environment names live in a global space - other extensions might want to
> put a cause into the environment. Would it be worth the pain to scope the name
> _this_ extension is adding to this extension ("imapcause" or something like
> that)? >>
>
> I think that's a reasonable change, and will change "cause" to
> "imapcause", unless there's objection from the WG (and one or two
> "That sounds fine." comments would be good).

That sounds fine.

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Stephan Bosch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There is no changelog in the document, so I wondered what changed
> That's why &deity made diffs.  When you go to the tools page:
>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sieve-imap-sieve
> ...you can click on "Diff1" if you like strike-out diffs or "Diff2" if
> you like side-by-side diffs.  Tools are your friends.

Indeed they are; good to know. It's good that I didn't use that though, 
otherwise I would not have made these comments. :)

>> #2) Section 2.2.2 suggests that there is a MULTIAPPEND command for IMAP.
>> There is no such thing: it is an IMAP capability that extends APPEND to
>> accept multiple messages at once. I would merge this with the previous
>> section:
> I have added this second paragraph to 2.2.1, eliminated 2.2.2, and
> eliminated the other references to a MULTIAPPEND command:
>
>      If the IMAP server also supports the IMAP MultiAppend extension
>      <xref target="RFC3502"/>, the APPEND command can create more
>      than one message at a time.
>      In that case, each message creation is considered a separate
>      event, and any applicable Sieve script is called once for each
>      message.

Agreed.

>> I also gave the issue of useless script triggers, i.e. events that are never
>> of interest for the script involved, some more thought. For example, I would
>> hate to have my Sieve script executed for each message that I read (added
>> \Seen flag) while it doesn't do anything useful with that event. Wouldn't it
>> be useful to have a `/shared/imapsieve/cause' Metadata item that indicates
>> which causes (the items from Section 7.3.1 in a space-separated list) should
>> trigger the Sieve script? More detailed control could be used to select
>> specific flags that are relevant (e.g. in a '/share/imapsieve/changedflags'
>> Metatada item).
> It might, and we considered this, but rejected the complexity.  I
> don't think this is the time to reconsider it.

Yes, I agree. This document is too far along. I'll remember this for a 
future revision/extension.

Regards,

Stephan.
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve