Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5804 (6345)

Hi all,

On 30/11/2020 14:41, Ned Freed wrote:
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5804,
>> "A Protocol for Remotely Managing Sieve Scripts".
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6345
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Editorial
>> Reported by: Kaspar Etter <[email protected]>
>> Section: 2.6
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> Examples:
>> […]
>>         C: Putscript "mysievescript" {110+}
>>         C: require ["fileinto"];
>>         C:
>>         C: if envelope :contains "to" "tmartin+sent" {
>>         C:   fileinto "INBOX.sent";
>>         C: }
>>         S: OK
>>         C: Putscript "myforwards" {190+}
>>         C: redirect "[email protected]";
>>         C:
>>         C: if size :under 10k {
>>         C:     redirect "[email protected]";
>>         C: }
>>         C:
>>         C: if envelope :contains "to" "tmartin+lists" {
>>         C:     redirect "[email protected]";
>>         C: }
>>         S: OK (WARNINGS) "line 8: server redirect action
>>                 limit is 2, this redirect might be ignored"
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> Examples:
>> […]
>>         C: Putscript "mysievescript" {99+}
>>         C: require ["fileinto"];
>>         C:
>>         C: if envelope :contains "to" "tmartin+sent" {
>>         C:   fileinto "INBOX.sent";
>>         C: }
>>         C:
>>         S: OK
>>         C: Putscript "myforwards" {190+}
>>         C: redirect "[email protected]";
>>         C:
>>         C: if size :under 10k {
>>         C:     redirect "[email protected]";
>>         C: }
>>         C:
>>         C: if envelope :contains "to" "tmartin+lists" {
>>         C:     redirect "[email protected]";
>>         C: }
>>         C:
>>         S: OK (WARNINGS) "line 8: server redirect action
>>                 limit is 2, this redirect might be ignored"
>> Notes
>> -----
>> The octet count of the second example is wrong. Additionally, both the second
>> and the third example should have an empty client line after the code like the
>> first example. Otherwise, the octet count of the last example is also wrong.
> The analysis here is correct: I both hand-counted and cut-and-pasted the
> original and revised objects into my managesieve to be sure. However, my
> managesieve implementation rejected both scripts because they both use an
> envelope test but envelope isn't listed in the require clause.
Yes, good point. And thank you for the corrected scripts.
> In order to
> correct this, the examples need to be changed to:
>
>         C: Putscript "mysievescript" {110+}
>         C: require ["fileinto", "envelope"];
>         C:
>         C: if envelope :contains "to" "tmartin+sent" {
>         C:   fileinto "INBOX.sent";
>         C: }
>         C:
>         S: OK
>
>         C: Putscript "myforwards" {213+}
>         C: require "envelope";
>         C:
>         C: redirect "[email protected]";
>         C:
>         C: if size :under 10k {
>         C:     redirect "[email protected]";
>         C: }
>         C:
>         C: if envelope :contains "to" "tmartin+lists" {
>         C:     redirect "[email protected]";
>         C: }
>         C:
>         S: OK (WARNINGS) "line 8: server redirect action
>         S:  limit is 2, this redirect might be ignored"
>
> I also added the missing S: from the last line of server response and
> removed the preceeding whitespace.

Actually this last addition of "S:" is incorrect. As per section 1.9:

    In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
    server respectively.  Line breaks that do not start a new "C:" or
    "S:" exist for editorial reasons.

Basically each "S:" implies that there is a CRLF at the end of the line, but in the above case there is none. Quoted strings can't contain embedded CRLFs.

Best Regards,

Alexey

>
> Given the errata is correct as far as it goes but incomplete, I have
> no idea how you want to handle it.
>
> 				Ned
>
>> Instructions:
>> -------------
>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC5804 (draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-09)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : A Protocol for Remotely Managing Sieve Scripts
>> Publication Date    : July 2010
>> Author(s)           : A. Melnikov, Ed., T. Martin
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : Sieve Mail Filtering Language
>> Area                : Applications
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>> _______________________________________________
>> sieve mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve

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