From nobody Tue Dec 1 07:18:20 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E01B33A1386; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 07:18:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.402 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JPqVrlOJmKIl; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 07:18:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vk1-f180.google.com (mail-vk1-f180.google.com [209.85.221.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8278F3A1384; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 07:18:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vk1-f180.google.com with SMTP id e127so509866vkb.5; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 07:18:17 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hPfX4QVtg47AS/O9x0jV6AsfjemvENkZNLAM226wC1g=; b=brNyYnrRIcu+ePuGQTaROb9rKOT3ycyX5P7Hnm0niKnhrt4AM6K/CZ43F9KnOLzl/9 kdAm56D71tc2IQ32lyiPZ/R3zJk5b2VW0Gbo9GZJXtnEHmm6kzr94MCVi02KAWn8nmsE 5Z8+YCXchcwABwampO58iCdHr3DM6sIcqm9N5xv6HCPuv9wc56H7eb+uAFlSERSWdOgl cy9KwuNSwj4UPNi0J5DpIcU4CPHlvaUPRdZTbGgW1YjYQYeQIJm2S9kAnpjlEAvMX7kY 7WqqXZ8RUg8bGJYD6ACqOSvmv6FAaMm7OzE5+8s00wp22+m0cV4k5IymKRXOaxKkjCTt 4eFA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530MsBEta3SK9a7jlhO1wwh/E2NMFnOiffP5DYQMObMKbI9a2dwY V93gfhkcnrpYqq2VPcxa965UzgFlGMUtlwrcafChqa5Qb8s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyTYXeoKsJTB0gLvtmr28+gs8sP9slSmuHPTzkzbI18dXbe3Di2Nnns32MWlbbYsoXzw/WGNWSDT9Yy9pE8wHQ= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:b291:: with SMTP id b139mr2613947vkf.0.1606835896082; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 07:18:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <160680275991.19519.15021073145558109806@ietfa.amsl.com> <04396f38-431b-48e8-8b0f-65e2518d8ed4@dogfood.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <04396f38-431b-48e8-8b0f-65e2518d8ed4@dogfood.fastmail.com> From: Barry Leiba Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 10:18:04 -0500 Message-ID: To: Bron Gondwana Cc: Pete Resnick , General Area Review Team , extra@ietf.org, draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Extra] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-05 X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 15:18:19 -0000 > And yeah - if the latest mmark is causing artifacts I'll see what I can do about those. I admit I didn't > read through the whole thing in detail again after making the last updates. If it's easy to fix, please do, but don't get too wrapped up in spending time on that: the RFC Editor will be converting it to xml2rfc v3 anyway, and those issues will be resolved in that process. Barry From nobody Thu Dec 3 03:13:42 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E2C3A0317 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 03:13:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.119 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmailteam.com header.b=qhu1SDd6; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=CnSHJUee Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cq58NiowJSfJ for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 03:13:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A75753A0332 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 03:13:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913A8CCB; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 06:13:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap7 ([10.202.2.57]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 03 Dec 2020 06:13:38 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:to:cc:subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=BrSG LA0gHPyxHVDqioGK14gfbTYGaeDgP5dVYvFtabw=; b=qhu1SDd65DVnY5vyat0X AY4H737Ci+tLH9WHvdlcP9oUargamHzfo4/sRjw88J35Q84y1DSlxSqgiTO1MB0H y6teRb9cogltWxLHo36pnf+ISI/EtJb4nDtbTv6jbK9tD+VJ6RsH6iQnjHmU3mfH 09RlyaJ5MSB+LBNJczXalf1ACE+Vv/ksAnDINaajE4Fv/m1IBeHDTBhcofwWH40Q +Xcna6AA1C6EwgLSXYiHwR5LyDeVUNbndaZugJ8fXRsk2B2tS7yfZwGbnDWFEmgU aN233QeiaF0PhrbWGkGZhzaFiylq7+ZOQicJAqAu88fgpyk/La6pfhcIQBeu9bX0 +A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=BrSGLA 0gHPyxHVDqioGK14gfbTYGaeDgP5dVYvFtabw=; b=CnSHJUeeW9jWwgK7J6/4Wg og20BUZezjX0YiEss38yXHnBYfGuPOqAKideWPKUtwj+IKZ/X4sg7+JXqcxB2b2W Lk2wk+ea4SEg5hlGS3LUy+HCk5lKbipmtBzvcq56OQ9TWTX6LQas5QeNFdUZyYp3 8vqidpUTKlwNxWgKY/0Xv1EoADs+J0V9JutGEVEGkkIx8vxhGNf6PLD18DQFlqGx dJkqQWElsDjqLI1dQRxZj5el/H/h0fOinUvmY5B9LD4gchQgNwZUnQ2yqc+jcQZJ 1DkmQc9xKCS9MT9sWHKmOnFUwemHE5lX6MU+Y5/osf43EncR6p7o5A05zKsCBK9w == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrudeiiedgvdeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesrgdtreerreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdeurhho nhcuifhonhgufigrnhgrfdcuoegsrhhonhhgsehfrghsthhmrghilhhtvggrmhdrtghomh eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffevfeeigfejveetheehleegteelteevgeeutdfhhefg hfdtjefhvdehhfdtkefgnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvg hrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsrhhonhhgsehfrghsthhm rghilhhtvggrmhdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 79E39180093; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 06:13:37 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-622-g4a97c0b-fm-20201115.001-g4a97c0b3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 22:13:17 +1100 From: "Bron Gondwana" To: extra@ietf.org Cc: "Alexey Melnikov" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=ace393cda235490caa20e3e8e6a8f701 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Extra] Working Group Last Call: quota X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 11:13:41 -0000 --ace393cda235490caa20e3e8e6a8f701 Content-Type: text/plain Alexey, I'm expecting an upload to remove the `OVERQUOTA SP tag` construct, then I'll shepherd this thing off to the IESG! There hasn't been any feedback on the last call. Cheers, Bron. On Thu, Nov 19, 2020, at 12:02, Bron Gondwana wrote: > Hi all, > > This message starts a 2 week working group last call for: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-quota/ > > NOTE: there is an action item to remove the 'OVERQUOTA SP tag' construction, per discussion at IETF109. I have tagged the document with "revised ID needed" in the datatracker. > > Please provide feedback by December 4th. > > Regards, > > Bron. > > -- > Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd > brong@fastmailteam.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Extra mailing list > Extra@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra > -- Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd brong@fastmailteam.com --ace393cda235490caa20e3e8e6a8f701 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Alexey, I'm expecting an upload to remove the `OVERQU= OTA SP tag` construct, then I'll shepherd this thing off to the IESG!&nb= sp; There hasn't been any feedback on the last call.

Chee= rs,

Bron.

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020, at 12:0= 2, Bron Gondwana wrote:
Hi all,

This me= ssage starts a 2 week working group last call for:


NOTE: t= here is an action item to remove the 'OVERQUOTA SP tag' construction, pe= r discussion at IETF109.  I have tagged the document with "revised = ID needed" in the datatracker.

Please provide feedback by= December 4th.

Regards,

Bron.

--
  B= ron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  brong@fastmailteam.com

=

___________= ____________________________________
Extra mailing list
Extra@ietf.org


=
--
  Bro= n Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
&nbs= p; brong@fastmailteam.com


--ace393cda235490caa20e3e8e6a8f701-- From nobody Thu Dec 3 03:19:40 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: extra@ietf.org Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AAB43A03F1; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 03:19:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: extra@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: extra@ietf.org Message-ID: <160699437898.22145.8147510604103584689@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 03:19:39 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Extra] I-D Action: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06.txt X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 11:19:39 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend WG of the IETF. Title : Sieve Email Filtering: delivery by mailboxid Author : Bron Gondwana Filename : draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2020-12-03 Abstract: The OBJECTID capability of the IMAP protocol (RFC8474) allows clients to identify mailboxes by a unique identifier which survives rename. This document extends the Sieve mail filtering language (RFC5228) to allow using that same unique identifier as a target for fileinto rules, and for testing the existance of mailboxes. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid/ There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06.html A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Dec 3 03:20:13 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E51D13A0858; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 03:19:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.119 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmailteam.com header.b=Bdb8EbEo; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=pS9Ul0Ey Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XhJcslQ429aD; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 03:19:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A89C3A07DB; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 03:19:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAAACF3D; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 06:19:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap7 ([10.202.2.57]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 03 Dec 2020 06:19:54 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:to:cc:subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=GsIo gKO7dW3g1CAyEOQIyhd5YvxuAs7v5/AwcZDKl6s=; b=Bdb8EbEoMxhl3S1Obsqy Zjs+zXiMt4X6aoemp1+wgBOLA2WPaeo8onfFJnw3gl7JwM3CD0QBGVKqM+okcZzd S5csXRDXtni8bPOYRMKKH+fuLVE/g/TIhCE0q9eQp1nIVSdzeJSc48Q+9dcmz+/h P1OdCVdZ+ggfgtGqird+AHjB5t2hEde/OtG/B2kiTs8ggONI+mj/63QKTHn/RqXi rE2GBGn81aLa7uf/EUVdx/Daet3aCJY40cyR3OHdHJfF1I966gxr8QG3FJ0RlKRo 3or1qcqw4NnCNX5fOXgIaRvTrnol8fisjl0EATqBorS/i4rlC4xbwjON3PtCxGl6 7Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=GsIogK O7dW3g1CAyEOQIyhd5YvxuAs7v5/AwcZDKl6s=; b=pS9Ul0EyekABNDk1hLtSX3 vc2JoFEuovB8rxm/zZ1FYpSK7TPcSb+R5vJ6tVggaDVpP6Z5caIpQL8Q3wkcje6a ftzBPxzIz4+zhTQFoT/vY8oOGSsSfjvH6XoDivQgCk/ca9bJ1gXPCDEaA/hmI7yF 8axb1dB/kdOiw4qtzkUoOU7QBPOoIsfqkBsSFEisxuOJ627iHrMMHYayiLEZ5xlM br1sVeYECbRYJmIkO8lWf+8JJzAGCwwiwH0PT5tG3yqllW7xXVOr6j1lWIeuhAoV SNSUjR/2yFgBggG3jcb/NR+DRbeB+xREkhNK80eLtERnn/Sbaa0MvmUNXtVtPsYg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrudeiiedgvdejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesrgdtreerreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdeurhho nhcuifhonhgufigrnhgrfdcuoegsrhhonhhgsehfrghsthhmrghilhhtvggrmhdrtghomh eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdehteegfeevteduffevteehfffghefhvdevkeeuhfeh ueetudehgfegieekjeetnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepsghrohhnghesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlthgvrghmrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id BBFEF180117; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 06:19:52 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-622-g4a97c0b-fm-20201115.001-g4a97c0b3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <160680275991.19519.15021073145558109806@ietfa.amsl.com> <04396f38-431b-48e8-8b0f-65e2518d8ed4@dogfood.fastmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 22:19:20 +1100 From: "Bron Gondwana" To: last-call@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, "General Area Review Team" , draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid.all@ietf.org, "Pete Resnick" Cc: "Barry Leiba" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=778cf0e65b804d7981954baaa590af9e Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Extra] =?utf-8?q?=5BLast-Call=5D_Genart_last_call_review_of_dra?= =?utf-8?q?ft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-05?= X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 11:20:04 -0000 --778cf0e65b804d7981954baaa590af9e Content-Type: text/plain On Wed, Dec 2, 2020, at 02:18, Barry Leiba wrote: > > And yeah - if the latest mmark is causing artifacts I'll see what I can do about those. I admit I didn't > > read through the whole thing in detail again after making the last updates. > > If it's easy to fix, please do, but don't get too wrapped up in > spending time on that: the RFC Editor will be converting it to xml2rfc > v3 anyway, and those issues will be resolved in that process. Thanks Barry, it was really this simple: -For servers which also support [!@RFC8579] delivery to special-use mailboxes, +For servers which also support [@!RFC8579] delivery to special-use mailboxes, Yep, I did feel rather silly. My workflow already spits out xml2rfc v3 files, so hopefully that saves the RFC editor some work :) I've uploaded -06 with those two fixes, since I haven't seen any other feedback yet. Bron. -- Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd brong@fastmailteam.com --778cf0e65b804d7981954baaa590af9e Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020, at 02:18, Barry Leiba wrote:
> And yeah - if the latest mmark is causing artifacts I'll = see what I can do about those.  I admit I didn't
> read through the whole thing in detail aga= in after making the last updates.

If it's easy to fix, pl= ease do, but don't get too wrapped up in
spending time on that: the RFC Editor will be converting it = to xml2rfc
v3 anyway, and tho= se issues will be resolved in that process.

= Thanks Barry, it was really this simple:

-For servers which als= o support [!@RFC8579] delivery to special-use mailboxes,
+For servers which also support [@!R= FC8579] delivery to special-use mailboxes,

= Yep, I did feel rather silly.  My workflow already spits out xml2rf= c v3 files, so hopefully that saves the RFC editor some work :)

I've uploaded -06 with those two fixes, since I haven't seen any = other feedback yet.

Bron.

-= -
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail = Pty Ltd
  brong@fastmailteam.com<= br>


--778cf0e65b804d7981954baaa590af9e-- From nobody Thu Dec 3 12:36:05 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7743A0C46; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:36:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FboXPZ3J0d3D; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:36:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vs1-f51.google.com (mail-vs1-f51.google.com [209.85.217.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C5313A0C35; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:36:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vs1-f51.google.com with SMTP id h6so2016326vsr.6; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 12:36:02 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sAmf88nsN2NZy67jVoKaSCeFwIBVeYwkF6wjaOoNic4=; b=PVSwQWrnm6rSANXB54RlFU0RX9RnQGnvmpayq9vYsICx0iALek55N65VKWkzf/bVFK KhF7JJBxeV1kos8wAznU27+qFSgNieILU+Wf5EBukjACrIZetHWd0r7VfIEVtSiWpl73 /nvmhFZfWKUlvnHP3sPgdIF+lggPwpCoFOQIbUgf4yAC4tCYp9uQK6WM5kc95qLjiGq3 fm3r6s50ZLGotXbLTBb74Rlk99a1fyRgX5ThRAxHOlnmVamSdCviTX0bfeU5J9Rjcw0a tVZuovvzh4W4eRkeLjmxoc2+8rMH9y3zRZhyYsjKkiNzlf7bFGHWpj9i2POeeW76ifSA G7gg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530fG9/gMIelcFlrNBua3HfCe1gLwW8NsSU+01r0UJsNk2mNPWgx gzdCi5VoaQv3KTPDqLI85EtHrX9Kf0XL7/mgscblY67dLZQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzKUpkiPlE/F4LzdOFILtfIYNOLyT/8ECKME22S8Q08iXjPw9+6jmwvS4VxAnptI7yy867uccrJjdWotBl37W0= X-Received: by 2002:a67:ff08:: with SMTP id v8mr1158031vsp.9.1607027761343; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 12:36:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <160680275991.19519.15021073145558109806@ietfa.amsl.com> <04396f38-431b-48e8-8b0f-65e2518d8ed4@dogfood.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Barry Leiba Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 15:35:50 -0500 Message-ID: To: Bron Gondwana Cc: extra@ietf.org, draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid.all@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Extra] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-05 X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 20:36:04 -0000 Great... I'm putting -06 into IESG Evaluation, so it should get on the 17 Dec telechat. Barry On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 6:20 AM Bron Gondwana wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020, at 02:18, Barry Leiba wrote: > > > And yeah - if the latest mmark is causing artifacts I'll see what I can do about those. I admit I didn't > > read through the whole thing in detail again after making the last updates. > > If it's easy to fix, please do, but don't get too wrapped up in > spending time on that: the RFC Editor will be converting it to xml2rfc > v3 anyway, and those issues will be resolved in that process. > > > Thanks Barry, it was really this simple: > > -For servers which also support [!@RFC8579] delivery to special-use mailboxes, > +For servers which also support [@!RFC8579] delivery to special-use mailboxes, > > Yep, I did feel rather silly. My workflow already spits out xml2rfc v3 files, so hopefully that saves the RFC editor some work :) > > I've uploaded -06 with those two fixes, since I haven't seen any other feedback yet. > > Bron. > > -- > Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd > brong@fastmailteam.com > > From nobody Fri Dec 11 14:53:46 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: extra@ietf.org Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F43F3A0FFB; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:53:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Duke via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, Jiankang Yao , yaojk@cnnic.cn X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Martin Duke Message-ID: <160772722455.16649.10664469717749775046@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:53:44 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Extra] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 22:53:45 -0000 Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * Do I understand the example correctly in Section 4.1? - If "Fnosuch" and "INBOX.no-such-folder" exist, it gets filed to Fnosuch. - If "Fnosuch" exists but "INBOX.no-such-folder" does not, it's filed to Fnosuch but INBOX.no-such-folder is created as well. - If "Fnosuch" does not exist, it goes to "INBOX.no-such-folder", which is created if necessary. If not, some additional clarification here would be useful. * Similarly, am I correct that Section 6's example is functionally equivalent to Section 4's example (although not demonstrating use of the test)? If so, the "Note to implementers" might as well make that clear as well. From nobody Sat Dec 12 02:41:12 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E713A0FF6; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 02:41:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.119 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmailteam.com header.b=fd6hhyv7; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=D+MpvCwP Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7V-aYRMwsmaI; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 02:41:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCBBC3A0FEC; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 02:41:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 757753AA; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 05:41:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap7 ([10.202.2.57]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 12 Dec 2020 05:41:03 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:to:cc:subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=UEf4 PM4k74ksNTHYQFjR+kk+FPCZ9cDIrjX2cGXyEU4=; b=fd6hhyv7JBtyXoFZOlli kmhIcN+wD/FaAWSjM378Z6MH+ynzuPw76hAUiFvSBFRY5tS5K8uSATWsBx7FQl6S ZLwq4wfpx9tPAQ5nV1yhxzKncjv4KynUDPud97u0SE8n2+nYoXkcloJIEELlyv+1 Dw/ZRujob8QwxSZKvptpfy7ApoLmpXoR3LocdxvJ+1FNy//5gH2Fs68nCQMOFBSM E5XwkZQjL4rtCwedetgcgBjJ2WrQ5pVTmMgKu+NKeP9JRMaYLe9nXYG3uyVdZHWG XD9CBH/Np+0AxtHsPZJeod3JO45xgeK+7MppbLyQYSqCHtGluKBwXATcVghZYVOr kg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=UEf4PM 4k74ksNTHYQFjR+kk+FPCZ9cDIrjX2cGXyEU4=; b=D+MpvCwPGByzQ6jQGmXnvC sUwjwqAXYYrSQbT+R0tIP4D1DZnQnRWtYaGO7dOiR8HcqC1TWaaii3Fbv3CaUMKY i0cObpjvSD46qLcDSca+j3ZmjV1Flr44UjFFRd8AeCKe6mID1Wd5gE6DfNGCgsCL fZi3LSjLs0CY4V5156syJ+x2NcHEnaKaGJGXi5IWiwiS3CpUxiGD7EP1pJOausaJ rvrLdhnFY7dM4lCFNwv/sqoUvTTWjOnNiyJfSwlTwjheSU2oJmh2uWzALCvvhPIs vOXwTEEfdM2bMDFqa8a4ZK96eO0TwFNy33oNwUXmlqtsTs2rVjsvkwWdfv/RVQqA == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrudekgedgvddtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesrgdtreerreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdeurhho nhcuifhonhgufigrnhgrfdcuoegsrhhonhhgsehfrghsthhmrghilhhtvggrmhdrtghomh eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdehteegfeevteduffevteehfffghefhvdevkeeuhfeh ueetudehgfegieekjeetnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepsghrohhnghesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlthgvrghmrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id AA4FF180093; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 05:41:00 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.1-61-gb52c239-fm-20201210.001-gb52c2396 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <160772722455.16649.10664469717749775046@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <160772722455.16649.10664469717749775046@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 21:40:40 +1100 From: "Bron Gondwana" To: "Martin Duke" , "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, "Jiankang Yao" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=610a279e54df4848a100fe0040314a23 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Extra] =?utf-8?q?Martin_Duke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf-ext?= =?utf-8?q?ra-sieve-mailboxid-06=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?= X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 10:41:10 -0000 --610a279e54df4848a100fe0040314a23 Content-Type: text/plain On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, at 09:53, Martin Duke via Datatracker wrote: > - If "Fnosuch" exists but "INBOX.no-such-folder" does not, it's filed to > Fnosuch but INBOX.no-such-folder is created as well. No, if Fnosuch exists, it is filed into, and no further evaluation follows. > If not, some additional clarification here would be useful. I guess so since you didn't get the intent! > * Similarly, am I correct that Section 6's example is functionally equivalent > to Section 4's example (although not demonstrating use of the test)? If so, the > "Note to implementers" might as well make that clear as well. Yes, the two examples have identical behaviour. I can add a note to that effect. Thanks, Bron. -- Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd brong@fastmailteam.com --610a279e54df4848a100fe0040314a23 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, at 09:53, Martin Duke via Datatracke= r wrote:
- If "Fnosuch" exists but "INBOX.no-such-fold= er" does not, it's filed to
F= nosuch but INBOX.no-such-folder is created as well.

No, if Fnosuch exists, it is filed into, and no further evaluati= on follows.

If not, some additional clarification here would be useful.
<= /blockquote>

I guess so since you didn't get the intent!
<= div style=3D"font-family:Arial;">
* Similarly, am I corr= ect that Section 6's example is functionally equivalent
to Section 4's example (although not demonstr= ating use of the test)? If so, the
"Note to implementers" might as well make that clear as well.
<= /div>

Yes, the two examples have identical behaviour.&= nbsp; I can add a note to that effect.

Thanks,
<= div style=3D"font-family:Arial;">
Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmai= l Pty Ltd
  brong@fastmailteam.co= m


--610a279e54df4848a100fe0040314a23-- From nobody Sun Dec 13 23:38:23 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: extra@ietf.org Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA283A07F7; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:38:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke_via_Datatracker?= To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, Jiankang Yao , yaojk@cnnic.cn X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke?= Message-ID: <160793150061.9826.16067010240487652192@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:38:20 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Extra] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-iet?= =?utf-8?q?f-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?= X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 07:38:21 -0000 Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. This extension seems obvious and quite useful. Please find below one some nits. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric As a side note about the document shepherd's write-up, so much I liked the WG summary, so much I am surprized by the similar section 7 and 8 ;-) Should the example be delimited by ? From nobody Tue Dec 15 06:22:09 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: extra@ietf.org Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9829F3A127E; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 06:22:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, Jiankang Yao , yaojk@cnnic.cn X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Magnus Westerlund Message-ID: <160804212198.17646.8123862646316973469@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 06:22:02 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Extra] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:22:05 -0000 Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- First part is a formality discuss that likely is fairly easy to resolve So this document uses formal syntax, however it does not explicitly reference which. So I noticed RFC 5228 that do reference RFC 4234 which is now obsolete, and the current in force version of ABNF is RFC 5234. Also as no WSP are included in the rules, this document appears to use ABNF to express RFC 5228 grammar and not parsing syntax. So please clarify prior to the usages what the formal language is and what it represents. So this needs to be done prior to Section 5. But, can you please check that you actually have the same level of formal syntax in Section 5 that goes through RFC 8580 as what is in Section 8. Otherwise please clarify both. Secondly, I do consider the defining text first paragraph of in Section 4.1 so hard to interpret that it must be fixed prior to publication. So although you already are going to address it based on discussion of Martin Duke's comment, I want to hold a discuss on this. From nobody Tue Dec 15 10:15:53 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: extra@ietf.org Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053A23A12BA; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:15:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, Jiankang Yao , yaojk@cnnic.cn X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk Message-ID: <160805614794.9780.776531769538211555@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:15:47 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Extra] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:15:48 -0000 Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 1 Thanks to the document shepherd for noting the lack of specific mention in the Introduction that RFC 5228 is updated (and how). Because the Abstract and Introduction are supposed to be able to stand separately, some text similar to what is in the Abstract should also be present in the Introduction. Section 3 Scripts which use the following extensions MUST explicitly require the capability "mailboxid". (editorial) since it may not be immediately clear "what follows", I'd consider s/the following extensions/the extensions defined in this document/. Section 4.1 At risk of piling on, my suggested rewording for the initial paragraph here would be: % For servers that support the [RFC5490] mailbox extension, the % ":mailboxid" modifier may be specified together with the ":create" % modifier. However, in this case the ":mailboxid" modifier has no % effect, with the ":create" modifier causing the mailbox to be created % and otherwise interacting as normal with all other extensions. Section 5 This document extends the definition of the ":fcc" argument defined in [RFC8580] so that it can optionally be used with the ":mailboxid" argument. Is it normal to make this kind of behavior change without a formal "Updates:" relationship? Section 6 a) the READ-WRITE response code is present for the mailbox (see Section 7.1 of [RFC3501]), if IMAP Access Control List (ACL) [RFC4314] is not supported by the server, or Just to confirm, if the server does not provide response codes at all, the client has to assume that delivery is not possible to that folder? b) the user has 'p' or 'i' rights for the mailbox (see Section 5.2 of [RFC4314]). I'm not sure where the 'p' comes from; it is mentioned (as "p", with double quotes) only once in §2.2, as part of the statement that rights defined in RFC 2028 MUST NOT be present in the "RIGHTS=" capability. In particular, following the reference suggests that it is 'e' and 'i' that correspond to READ-WRITE. Section 9 There are quite a few extensions listed at https://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions/sieve-extensions.xhtml and this document only discusses the interaction of the "mailboxid" extension with a handful of them. I did not attempt to examine all extensions that are currently registered to check for potential interactions with "mailboxid" that might have security-relevant considerations, but I encourage the authors and/or shepherd to ensure that such a check has been made. Section 14 I find it interesting that the changelog for the -04 reports that RFC 5490 has been moved to normative, but it shows up as informative now (in the -06) with no other changelog mention. (I don't currently have a position on which classification of reference is more appropriate for it.) However, it seems like RFCs 3501 and 4314 need to be normative, since they are used to determine the behavior of the "mailboxidexists" test. From nobody Wed Dec 16 02:17:34 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: extra@ietf.org Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008513A086D; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 02:17:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, Jiankang Yao , yaojk@cnnic.cn X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Robert Wilton Message-ID: <160811385245.9819.13497049798009432966@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 02:17:32 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Extra] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 10:17:33 -0000 Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, Thanks for this document. It was easy to read/understand. One minor suggestion. It would perhaps be better to use "SHOULD" rather than "It is advisable" in section 4.2. One nit: "end run" rather than "endrun"? Regards, Rob From nobody Wed Dec 16 06:35:57 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: extra@ietf.org Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C880B3A0E3B; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 06:35:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Samuel Weiler via Datatracker To: Cc: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <160812934878.12321.15129391511723203770@ietfa.amsl.com> Reply-To: Samuel Weiler Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 06:35:48 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Extra] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06 X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 14:35:49 -0000 Reviewer: Samuel Weiler Review result: Has Issues Thank you for the well-written document! I'm concerned about the user experience of this extension. I imagine confusion will arise when the opaque :mailboxid takes precedence over the human readable mailbox name. I don't see any feedback mechanism to show that the mail is going to a mailbox other than the one that is human readable - feedback that could prompt updating of the script. As a human trying debug this, it may not be obvious where mail went - the script says "INBOX.foo" and the mail simply isn't there. Is there a way to make this more debuggable? Or is there useful advice to provide to the Sieve UI implementer, like "this is for special cases and should probably be off by default"? Minor: I'd like section 3 to point at what "require" means: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5228#section-2.10.5 From nobody Fri Dec 18 16:01:28 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A3633A0836; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 16:01:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t30FZOrmX0rl; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 16:01:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8F0D3A0827; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 16:01:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 03FD7F40716; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 16:01:14 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref@iana.org, extra@ietf.org Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20201219000114.03FD7F40716@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 16:01:14 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Subject: [Extra] =?utf-8?q?RFC_8970_on_IMAP4_Extension=3A_Message_Preview?= =?utf-8?q?_Generation?= X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 00:01:26 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 8970 Title: IMAP4 Extension: Message Preview Generation Author: M. Slusarz Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: December 2020 Mailbox: michael.slusarz@open-xchange.com Pages: 10 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview-10.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8970 DOI: 10.17487/RFC8970 This document specifies an Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) protocol extension that allows a client to request a server-generated abbreviated text representation of message data that is useful as a contextual preview of the entire message. This document is a product of the Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From nobody Sat Dec 19 23:13:32 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: extra@ietf.org Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDDD13A0816; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 23:13:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, Jiankang Yao , yaojk@cnnic.cn X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.24.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk Message-ID: <160844840988.16242.1174187841293849803@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 23:13:29 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Extra] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 07:13:30 -0000 Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [edited to add: please respond to the secdir review. Adding the :mailboxid that takes precedence over the human-readable name does seem to be a case where retrofitting functionality in can leave some rough edges.] Section 1 Thanks to the document shepherd for noting the lack of specific mention in the Introduction that RFC 5228 is updated (and how). Because the Abstract and Introduction are supposed to be able to stand separately, some text similar to what is in the Abstract should also be present in the Introduction. Section 3 Scripts which use the following extensions MUST explicitly require the capability "mailboxid". (editorial) since it may not be immediately clear "what follows", I'd consider s/the following extensions/the extensions defined in this document/. Section 4.1 At risk of piling on, my suggested rewording for the initial paragraph here would be: % For servers that support the [RFC5490] mailbox extension, the % ":mailboxid" modifier may be specified together with the ":create" % modifier. However, in this case the ":mailboxid" modifier has no % effect, with the ":create" modifier causing the mailbox to be created % and otherwise interacting as normal with all other extensions. Section 5 This document extends the definition of the ":fcc" argument defined in [RFC8580] so that it can optionally be used with the ":mailboxid" argument. Is it normal to make this kind of behavior change without a formal "Updates:" relationship? Section 6 a) the READ-WRITE response code is present for the mailbox (see Section 7.1 of [RFC3501]), if IMAP Access Control List (ACL) [RFC4314] is not supported by the server, or Just to confirm, if the server does not provide response codes at all, the client has to assume that delivery is not possible to that folder? b) the user has 'p' or 'i' rights for the mailbox (see Section 5.2 of [RFC4314]). I'm not sure where the 'p' comes from; it is mentioned (as "p", with double quotes) only once in §2.2, as part of the statement that rights defined in RFC 2028 MUST NOT be present in the "RIGHTS=" capability. In particular, following the reference suggests that it is 'e' and 'i' that correspond to READ-WRITE. Section 9 There are quite a few extensions listed at https://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions/sieve-extensions.xhtml and this document only discusses the interaction of the "mailboxid" extension with a handful of them. I did not attempt to examine all extensions that are currently registered to check for potential interactions with "mailboxid" that might have security-relevant considerations, but I encourage the authors and/or shepherd to ensure that such a check has been made. Section 14 I find it interesting that the changelog for the -04 reports that RFC 5490 has been moved to normative, but it shows up as informative now (in the -06) with no other changelog mention. (I don't currently have a position on which classification of reference is more appropriate for it.) However, it seems like RFCs 3501 and 4314 need to be normative, since they are used to determine the behavior of the "mailboxidexists" test. From nobody Thu Dec 31 09:10:20 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: extra@ietf.org Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 391E23A0DE9; Thu, 31 Dec 2020 09:10:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: extra@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.24.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: extra@ietf.org Message-ID: <160943461909.4771.12919263017409851336@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 09:10:19 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Extra] I-D Action: draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-22.txt X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 17:10:19 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend WG of the IETF. Title : Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - Version 4rev2 Authors : Alexey Melnikov Barry Leiba Filename : draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-22.txt Pages : 163 Date : 2020-12-31 Abstract: The Internet Message Access Protocol, Version 4rev2 (IMAP4rev2) allows a client to access and manipulate electronic mail messages on a server. IMAP4rev2 permits manipulation of mailboxes (remote message folders) in a way that is functionally equivalent to local folders. IMAP4rev2 also provides the capability for an offline client to resynchronize with the server. IMAP4rev2 includes operations for creating, deleting, and renaming mailboxes, checking for new messages, permanently removing messages, setting and clearing flags, RFC 5322, RFC 2045 and RFC 2231 parsing, searching, and selective fetching of message attributes, texts, and portions thereof. Messages in IMAP4rev2 are accessed by the use of numbers. These numbers are either message sequence numbers or unique identifiers. IMAP4rev2 does not specify a means of posting mail; this function is handled by a mail submission protocol such as the one specified in RFC 6409. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-22 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-22 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-22 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/