Subject: draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-00.txt is to replace draft-martin-managesieve-12.txt

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:41:30 +0100

I've posted draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-00.txt yesterday.
It has some relatively minor changes from draft-martin-managesieve-12.txt:

1). Addition of the WARNINGS response code (as per comment from Stephan 
Bosch)
2). Addition of the MAXREDIRECTS capability (as per discussion on the 
mailing list)
3). Updates/fixes to some examples (as per Chris Newman's review, etc.)
4). Added IANA registrations of some missing response codes

I only have 2 open issues outstanding:

1). Update to Sieve URL scheme based on Chris Newman's proposal. Based 
on the discussion on the mailing list I believe there is rough consensus 
to make the change, i.e. to add "authorized user" just before the script 
name, but it would be optional. I will send a separate message on this 
so that it is clear to everyone what change I will be implementing.

2). Stephan Bosch suggested that some deployments would like to have 
script verification mode, without allowing SASL ANONYMOUS. I.e. only to 
allow script verification by registered users of the service (SASL 
ANONYMOUS would allow *any* user, even not registered on the system, to 
perform script validation). ManageSieve used to have such mode by 
allowing the empty string as the script name in PUTSCRIPT, but it was 
taken out, because I felt at the time that SASL ANONYMOUS was a cleaner 
design. Now that I understand that the two mechanisms have different 
applicability, I would like to hear WG opinion on this issue.

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:50:22 +0200

Alexey Melnikov writes:
> on the discussion on the mailing list I believe there is rough 
> consensus to make the change, i.e. to add "authorized user" just 
> before the script name, but it would be optional. I will send a 
> separate message on this so that it is clear to everyone what change 
> I will be implementing.

Did you ask the kolab/kontakt people whether this will break their 
deployment, or choose non-conflicting syntax?

> script verification mode, without allowing SASL ANONYMOUS. I.e. only 
> to allow script verification by registered users of the service (SASL 
> ANONYMOUS would allow *any* user, even not registered on the system, 
> to perform script validation). ManageSieve used to have such mode by 
> taken out, because I felt at the time that SASL ANONYMOUS was a 
> cleaner design. Now that I understand that the two mechanisms have 
> different applicability, I would like to hear WG opinion on this 
> issue.

A new command is the cleanest way. CHECKSCRIPT.

Arnt

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:03:16 +0100

Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> Alexey Melnikov writes:
>
>> 1). Update to Sieve URL scheme based on Chris Newman's proposal. 
>> Based on the discussion on the mailing list I believe there is rough 

I think the new syntax is backward compatible, but kolab/kontakt would 
need to be updated if they want to support the new syntax.

BTW, do you have an email address(es) handy for kolab people?

>> different applicability, I would like to hear WG opinion on this issue.
>

I agree this is cleaner. But it has to be an extension (which is fine in 
this case)

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:20:45 +0200

> BTW, do you have an email address(es) handy for kolab people?

[email-masked] would do, I guess.

> I agree this is cleaner. But it has to be an extension (which is fine 
> in this case)

My intuitive preference is to make an extension, say that server MUST 
implement it, explain that it is an extension only because past 
versions of the document didn't contain CHECKSCRIPT, and maybe put 
warnings into this extension. (I haven't looked at how you did warnings 
in today's draft.)

Arnt

---

From: Aaron Stone <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:49:24 -0700

On Oct 21, 2008, at 4:20 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

>
> Alexey Melnikov writes:
>> I think the new syntax is backward compatible, but kolab/kontakt  
>> would need to be updated if they want to support the new syntax.
>>
>> I agree this is cleaner. But it has to be an extension (which is  
>> fine in this case)
>
> My intuitive preference is to make an extension, say that server  
> MUST implement it, explain that it is an extension only because past  
> warnings into this extension. (I haven't looked at how you did  
> warnings in today's draft.)

+1 for a new mandatory command.

Probably does need to be defined as an extension because there are a  
number of extant implementations. I thought someone said that we're  
breaking use of PUTSCRIPT for syntax validation, but I didn't see  
where that happened in a (very) quick read of the draft. If we make a  
change like that, I think it's reasonable to add CHECKSCRIPT without  
advertising it.

I'll note that the ABNF for PUTSCRIPT still allows a blank name:

command-putscript = "PUTSCRIPT" SP sieve-name SP sieve-script
sieve-name = string
quoted = DQUOTE *1024QUOTED-CHAR DQUOTE ;; limited to 1024 octets  
between the <">s

Aaron