Re: [Extra] I-D Action: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-snooze-00.txt

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ken,

On 27/10/2020 14:00, Ken Murchison wrote:
>
> On 10/22/20 12:16 PM, Ken Murchison wrote:
>>
>> On 10/22/20 10:20 AM, Stephan Bosch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/08/2020 13:11, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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: Snooze Extension
>>>>          Authors         : Kenneth Murchison
>>>>                            Ricardo Signes
>>>>                            Neil Jenkins
>>>>     Filename        : draft-ietf-extra-sieve-snooze-00.txt
>>>>     Pages           : 12
>>>>     Date            : 2020-08-07
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>     This document describes the "snooze" extension to the Sieve email
>>>>     filtering language.  The "snooze" extension gives Sieve the 
>>>> ability
>>>>     to postpone the filing of an incoming into a target mailbox 
>>>> until a
>>>>     later point in time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-snooze/
>>>>
>>>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-snooze-00
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-snooze-00
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>
>>> I have one question about this:
>>>
>>> Why does this add a new command? Why can't it just extend both keep 
>>> and fileinto with new arguments?
>>
>>
>> Hi Stephan,
>>
>> I suppose we could extend these commands as we are really just 
>> delaying the keep/fileinto until a future (awaken) time.
>>
>> So, it could look something like:
>>
>> fileinto [:snooze <times: string-list> [:tzid <string>] [:weekdays 
>> <stringlist>]] <mailbox: string>
>>
>> If we don't like having multiple tagged arguments, we could use a 
>> single string with some kind of ISO or iCalendar recurrence rule, but 
>> that might be more restrictive (I haven't actually sat down and 
>> worked out various examples).
>>
>> The only issue would be whether we want/need flags to be set at 
>> snooze time and then set/unset again at awaken time, which the 
>> current spec allows.
>>
>> How do others feel about extending keep/fileinto vs. a new command?
 From the point of view of making sure that extensions work with each 
other, not multiplying number of commands is a good thing. But I can 
also see attraction for [manual] script writers for shorter/different 
commands.
> As I think about this more, and look at how :fcc became kind of a mess 
> with a bunch of add-on tagged args, I wonder if using a single 
> structured string for a :snooze option to keep/fileinto might be 
> better.  E.g.:
>
> keep :snooze text:
> {
>   "until": [ "08:00:00", "12:00:00" ],
>   "days": [ "1", "3", "5" ],
>   "tzid": "America/New_York",
>   "addflags": [ "\\\\Flagged" ],
>   "removeflags": [ "\\\\Seen" ]
> }
> .
> ;
>
This would mean that you have 2 levels of parsing: first you use a 
generic Sieve parser to parse a Sieve script and then you would have to 
selectively parse certain recognized parameters using a different 
parser. I think this would unnecessarily increase complexity for both 
implementors and script writers, because there are now special cases of 
syntax.

Best Regards,

Alexey