Sieve Email Filtering: Use of Presence Information with Auto-Responder Functionality
draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply-04

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed.
The issues raised have been addressed by a revised I-D (version -04).

[Ballot comment]
Your homily to users in Section 1 is a good message, but I think it is
in the wrong document or targeted at the wrong audience. *This* document
would, I think, mainly apply to application developers since it is an
unusual user who writes their own Seive scripts. So the warning is
better rephrased to advise application developers to be careful to not
provide too many knobs and whistles, or to make sure that their
implementations warn users to exercise appropriate caution.

I would also note in this context that presence information might be a
good tool to reduce the amount of autoresponses generated thus
mitigating the sad effect of auto-responder functionality.

---

Section 4

  Despite the "intelligence", too, errors in scripts can result in
  private information getting to senders inappropriately.

Is "too," superfluous? I find it hard to parse.

[Ballot comment]
Example 2 in section 3 does what the last paragraph in section 1 says is a bad idea. Please consider reconciling these two parts of the document.

[Ballot comment]
This is somewhat unusual language to find in a RFC to be:

Consider whether it's truly important to tell people that
  you'll read their mail in an hour or so, or whether that can just be
  taken as how email works.  There are times when this makes sense, but
  let's not use it to exacerbate information overload.

The Document Shepherd has provided the following writeup:

###

SIEVE Autoreply -- WG Chairs Write-up for IESG.

draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply-02 - Informational

  (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 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?
         
          There is WG consensus behind this.

  (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.

  (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].
         
          There are only normative references. Some are to a number of other SIEVE extensions being worked on. The vacation-seconds and notify-presence extensions are being submitted along with this extension. The external-lists extension is still being reviewed by the working group, but is close to being done.

  (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. No IANA actions are needed.

  (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 autoreply specification is an informational document that describes how various SIEVE extensions can be used to facilitate an auto-responder based on various "presence" and other useful information belonging to the SIEVE script owner.

The security considerations section covers several identified security
concerns.

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

This is an informational document describing how SIEVE extensions can be used in a practical manner.

Personal

Document Shepherd: Cyrus Daboo
AD: Peter Saint-Andre

###

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Sieve Email Filtering: Use of Presence Information with Auto Responder functionality) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Sieve Mail Filtering Language WG
(sieve) to consider the following document:
- 'Sieve Email Filtering: Use of Presence Information with Auto Responder
  functionality'
  as an Informational RFC

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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2010-12-02. 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.

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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply/