The Sieve Mail-Filtering Language -- Extensions for Checking Mailbox Status and Accessing Mailbox Metadata
draft-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-08

[Ballot comment]
I think that it would be useful for the Introduction section to provide information about the applicability of the extensions defined in the document - are they targeting end-users, administrators, both?

[Ballot comment]
I support Russ's discuss: I believe that the text Alexey proposed adding in his January 20
message (To Spencer Dawkins cc'ed to ietf@ietf.org) would be a useful addition.

I have no other issues with this document...

[Ballot comment]
I support Russ's discuss: I believe that the text Alexey proposed adding in his December 20
message (To Spencer Dawkins cc'ed to ietf@ietf.org) would be a useful addition.

I have no other issues with this document...

[Ballot comment]
The abstract and introduction talk only about accessing mailbox/server
annotations, but the document also defines an extension for checking
mailbox status and creating mailboxes when needed. This should be
mentioned in the abstract and introduction.

[Ballot discuss]
There was a discussion following the Gen-ART Review posted by Spencer
  Dawkins pm 13-Dec-2008.  I expected to see an update to the document
  based on that discussion, but there has not been one.  There are not
  any RFC Editor notes either.

  Here is the point that I expected to be covered in the document:
 
  RFC 5228 (Sieve base) doesn't describe how Sieve scripts are stored
  and how to handle failure to retrieve them - this is out of scope for
  both documents. However I can add an example of what I meant here - if
  a Sieve script is stored in LDAP and the script can't be retrieved
  when a message is processed, then the agent performing Sieve
  processing can, for example, assume that the script doesn't exist, or
  delay message delivery until the script can be retrieved successfully.
  Annotations should be treated as if they are a part of the script
  itself, so a temporary failure to retrieve them should be handled in
  the same way as a temporary failure to retrieve the Sieve script itself.

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Sieve Extensions" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions

Capability name: mailbox
Description: adds test for checking for mailbox existence and a new
optional argument to fileinto for creating a mailbox before
attempting mail delivery.
RFC number: [RFC-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-08]
Contact address:
The Sieve discussion list


Capability name: mboxmetadata
Description: adds tests for checking for mailbox metadata item
existence and for retrieving of a mailbox metadata value.
RFC number: [RFC-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-08]
Contact address:
The Sieve discussion list


Capability name: servermetadata
Description: adds tests for checking for server metadata item
existence and for retrieving of a server metadata value.
RFC number: [RFC-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-08]
Contact address:
The Sieve discussion list


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.

  (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  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 adequate 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?
         
          Many of the WG participants have reviewed this document and are happy with it.

  (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 and no problems found.

  (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. There is one normative
          reference to the IMAP METADATA specification which is currently in IESG review. There are two informative references to other SIEVE extensions that are either in the RFC Editor queue or in IESG review.

  (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 mail filtering language - extension for accessing mailbox metadata extension provides a way for a SIEVE script to test annotations stored on an IMAP server supporting the METADATA extension.

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

A number of implementors have expressed interest in this extension.

Personal

Document Shepherd: Cyrus Daboo
AD: Lisa Dusseault