Skip to main content

JMAP for Sieve Scripts
draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-20

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-03-19
20 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-20.txt
2024-03-19
20 Kenneth Murchison New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kenneth Murchison)
2024-03-19
20 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2024-03-17
19 Mohit Sethi Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Mohit Sethi. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-03-17
19 Mohit Sethi Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Mohit Sethi.
2024-02-29
19 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-04-04
2024-02-29
19 Murray Kucherawy Ballot has been issued
2024-02-29
19 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2024-02-29
19 Murray Kucherawy Created "Approve" ballot
2024-02-29
19 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-02-29
19 Murray Kucherawy Ballot writeup was changed
2024-02-07
19 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-19.txt
2024-02-07
19 Kenneth Murchison New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kenneth Murchison)
2024-02-07
19 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2024-02-06
18 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2024-02-06
18 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-18.txt
2024-02-06
18 Kenneth Murchison New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kenneth Murchison)
2024-02-06
18 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2024-02-02
17 Ines Robles Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Ines Robles. Sent review to list.
2024-02-01
17 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned
2024-02-01
17 David Dong The JMAP Data Types, JMAP Capabilities and JMAP Error Codes registrations have all been approved.
2024-02-01
17 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2024-02-01
17 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-01-31
17 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK
2024-01-31
17 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-17.txt
2024-01-31
17 (System) New version approved
2024-01-31
17 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2024-01-31
17 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2024-01-30
16 David Dong The JMAP Data Types registration has been approved.
2024-01-29
16 Rich Salz Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Rich Salz. Sent review to list.
2024-01-27
16 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Rich Salz
2024-01-26
16 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Mohit Sethi
2024-01-24
16 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2024-01-24
16 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-16. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-16. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the JMAP Capabilities registry in the JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jmap/

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

Capability Name: urn:ietf:params:jmap:sieve
Intended Use: common
Change Controller: IETF
Security and Privacy Considerations: [ RFC-to-be; Section 4 ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, in the JMAP Data Types registry also in the JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jmap/

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

Type Name: SieveScript
Can Reference Blobs: yes
Can Use for State Change: yes
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:sieve
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this also requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Third, in the JMAP Error Codes registry also in the JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jmap/

two new registrations are to be made as follows:

JMAP Error Code: invalidScript
Intended Use: common
CHANGE Controller: IETF
Description: The SieveScript violates the Sieve grammar [RFC5228] and/or one or more extensions mentioned in the script's "require" statement(s) are not supported by the Sieve interpreter.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.2 ]

JMAP Error Code: scriptIsActive
Intended Use: common
CHANGE Controller: IETF
Description: The client tried to destroy the active SieveScript.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.2 ]

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
2024-01-19
16 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ines Robles
2024-01-18
16 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned
2024-01-18
16 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-01-18
16 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-01):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: brong@fastmailteam.com, draft-ietf-jmap-sieve@ietf.org, jmap-chairs@ietf.org, jmap@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-01):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: brong@fastmailteam.com, draft-ietf-jmap-sieve@ietf.org, jmap-chairs@ietf.org, jmap@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (JMAP for Sieve Scripts) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the JSON Mail Access Protocol WG (jmap)
to consider the following document: - 'JMAP for Sieve Scripts'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-02-01. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies a data model for managing Sieve scripts on a
  server using the JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jmap-sieve/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2024-01-18
16 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-01-18
16 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was generated
2024-01-17
16 Murray Kucherawy Last call was requested
2024-01-17
16 Murray Kucherawy Ballot approval text was generated
2024-01-17
16 Murray Kucherawy Ballot writeup was generated
2024-01-17
16 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2024-01-17
16 Murray Kucherawy Last call announcement was generated
2024-01-03
16 (System) Changed action holders to Murray Kucherawy (IESG state changed)
2024-01-03
16 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2024-01-03
16 Bron Gondwana
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Strong consensus

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The protocol is implemented in production at Fastmail and test implementations
have been done by other JMAP server authors.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The only other group is EXTRA and it's been cross reviewed there

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal reviews

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No YANG.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The JSON snippets were pasted through `jq .`, which caught some issues which
the author has now corrected in a new draft.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, this document is clearly written and complete.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

There aren't any common areas likely to affect this outside the JMAP group's
expertise.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard, as it extends a proposed standard.  Datatracker reflects that.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, the author has been asked, no known IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, there's only the one editor, and the acknowledged people are all happy with
being acknowledged too.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There's one nit "looks like a code comment", which looks like a false positive
of the idnits tool.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The references look correct, informative for those which you don't need to know
for implementation, but are mentioned to demonstrate interactions with them in
some examples.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All references are to IETF RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

There's an informative reference to draft-ietf-jmap-blob, which has since
become RFC9404, however this can easily be fixed during edit.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No RFCs will be changed.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations specify new entries in two registries, and those entries
are fully specified and reasonable.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new registries.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
2024-01-03
16 Bron Gondwana Responsible AD changed to Murray Kucherawy
2024-01-03
16 Bron Gondwana IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2024-01-03
16 Bron Gondwana IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-01-03
16 Bron Gondwana Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-01-03
16 Bron Gondwana
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Strong consensus

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The protocol is implemented in production at Fastmail and test implementations
have been done by other JMAP server authors.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The only other group is EXTRA and it's been cross reviewed there

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal reviews

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No YANG.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The JSON snippets were pasted through `jq .`, which caught some issues which
the author has now corrected in a new draft.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, this document is clearly written and complete.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

There aren't any common areas likely to affect this outside the JMAP group's
expertise.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard, as it extends a proposed standard.  Datatracker reflects that.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, the author has been asked, no known IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, there's only the one editor, and the acknowledged people are all happy with
being acknowledged too.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There's one nit "looks like a code comment", which looks like a false positive
of the idnits tool.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The references look correct, informative for those which you don't need to know
for implementation, but are mentioned to demonstrate interactions with them in
some examples.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All references are to IETF RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

There's an informative reference to draft-ietf-jmap-blob, which has since
become RFC9404, however this can easily be fixed during edit.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No RFCs will be changed.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations specify new entries in two registries, and those entries
are fully specified and reasonable.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new registries.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
2023-11-07
16 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-16.txt
2023-11-07
16 (System) New version approved
2023-11-07
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2023-11-07
16 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2023-10-23
15 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-15.txt
2023-10-23
15 (System) New version approved
2023-10-23
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2023-10-23
15 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2023-10-01
14 (System) Document has expired
2023-03-30
14 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-14.txt
2023-03-30
14 (System) New version approved
2023-03-30
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2023-03-30
14 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2022-11-16
13 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-13.txt
2022-11-16
13 (System) New version approved
2022-11-16
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2022-11-16
13 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2022-10-24
12 Bron Gondwana
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Strong consensus

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The protocol is implemented in production at Fastmail and test implementations
have been done by other JMAP server authors.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The only other group is EXTRA and it's been cross reviewed there

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal reviews

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No YANG.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The JSON snippets were pasted through `jq .`, which caught some issues which
the author has now corrected in a new draft.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, this document is clearly written and complete.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

There aren't any common areas likely to affect this outside the JMAP group's
expertise.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard, as it extends a proposed standard.  Datatracker reflects that.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, the author has been asked, no known IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, there's only the one editor, and the acknowledged people are all happy with
being acknowledged too.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There's one nit "looks like a code comment", which looks like a false positive
of the idnits tool.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The references look correct, informative for those which you don't need to know
for implementation, but are mentioned to demonstrate interactions with them in
some examples.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All references are to IETF RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

There's an informative reference to draft-ietf-jmap-blob which is already submitted
to IESG for publication, so it will be fine to delay this document to update
the reference before publication.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No RFCs will be changed.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations specify new entries in two registries, and those entries
are fully specified and reasonable.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new registries.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
2022-10-24
12 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-12.txt
2022-10-24
12 (System) New version approved
2022-10-24
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2022-10-24
12 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2022-10-24
11 Bron Gondwana Notification list changed to brong@fastmailteam.com because the document shepherd was set
2022-10-24
11 Bron Gondwana Document shepherd changed to Bron Gondwana
2022-10-24
11 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-11.txt
2022-10-24
11 (System) New version approved
2022-10-24
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2022-10-24
11 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2022-10-22
10 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-10.txt
2022-10-22
10 (System) New version approved
2022-10-22
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2022-10-22
10 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2022-07-28
09 Bron Gondwana IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2022-07-28
09 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-09.txt
2022-07-28
09 (System) New version approved
2022-07-28
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2022-07-28
09 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2022-05-17
08 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-08.txt
2022-05-17
08 (System) New version approved
2022-05-17
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2022-05-17
08 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2022-05-02
07 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-07.txt
2022-05-02
07 (System) New version approved
2022-05-02
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2022-05-02
07 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2021-11-08
06 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-06.txt
2021-11-08
06 (System) New version approved
2021-11-08
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2021-11-08
06 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2021-10-20
05 Bron Gondwana Added to session: interim-2021-jmap-02
2021-08-02
05 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-05.txt
2021-08-02
05 (System) New version approved
2021-08-02
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2021-08-02
05 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2021-03-01
04 Bron Gondwana Added to session: IETF-110: jmap  Thu-1700
2021-02-03
04 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-04.txt
2021-02-03
04 (System) New version approved
2021-02-03
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2021-02-03
04 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2020-12-17
03 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-03.txt
2020-12-17
03 (System) New version approved
2020-12-17
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2020-12-17
03 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2020-11-18
02 Bron Gondwana Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2020-11-18
02 Bron Gondwana Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2020-11-02
02 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-02.txt
2020-11-02
02 (System) New version approved
2020-11-02
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2020-11-02
02 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2020-09-22
01 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-01.txt
2020-09-22
01 (System) New version approved
2020-09-22
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison
2020-09-22
01 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2020-09-06
00 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-00.txt
2020-09-06
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2020-09-04
00 Kenneth Murchison Set submitter to "Kenneth Murchison ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: jmap-chairs@ietf.org
2020-09-04
00 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision