Re: [Extra] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-08

Ned Freed <> Wed, 09 January 2019 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B019E130EC9; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 08:13:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8voAo6CaUNlm; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 08:13:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B48AF128D0C; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 08:13:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 08:08:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=201712; t=1547050120; bh=dFH+A+ReB1lcuoaF4R5k/+8fo+4SAWeoSBm8wmufHWk=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=HmEtT5qmV4YuGAv44ytab9edVWNHI3kJ2GMz2+KJIeoFrTLdWU1IJ7WZLn91AylT8 K7FuZhiBxeGsd4dpB84tTBMXBMnCZZWojTdD/I56xy0UBr1IWOlS4+vId76PpuTvsj 3blWJyc00f6qgytKHiZgE4WWB9B+vczJUdDvhR0E=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 08:08:32 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <>,,, ietf <>,
Message-id: <>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 07:58:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 09 Jan 2019 13:27:34 +0200" <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Dan Romascanu <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-08
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: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 16:13:47 -0000

> Thanks for the answer. It helps indeed. It would help better if this is
> documented with one paragraph in the text of the document. While developers
> know well the details, users and operators may be less familiar with these.

I'm going to push back on this a bit. It's effectively axiomatic that in order
to understand a protocol extension you first need to understand the protocol
and it's extension mechanism. Having every extension reiterate a subset of how
the extension mechanism works seems pointless at best and more likely
counterproductive - covering only a subset of the mechanism, which is
all you're be able to do without repeating a significant amount of
RFC 5228 will give the (incorrect) impression that it's all you need to know.

Now, it would be one thing if there was a section in RFC 5228 that
describes the extension mechanism - if that were the case we could
just reference it. But for better or worse RFC 5228 isn't constructed that
way. Perhaps more than any other protocol, Sieve is designed to be extended
easily, and the discussion of how that works appears throughout the

Finally, if we're going to talk about implementation and use issues in regards
to this extension - and I'm not saying we should - such text would be better
spent on discussing the interplay between this extension and where sieves are