Re: [Extra] AD review of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-03

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the quick reply, Alexey.

> >     The server advertises the capability "mailboxid"
> >
> > How are sieve capabilities advertised?
>
> The text from the draft you quoted is a bit misleading. Scripts specify
> that they require an extension by listing it in "require". Server can
> advertise supported Sieve extensions through ManageSieve or JMAP Sieve
> extension, but this is outside the scope of this draft.

Yes, exactly.  I'm asking that the text be changed, either to not talk
about the capability being advertised or saying just a few more words
to make the situation clearer.

> > — Section 4 —
> >
> > Two things here:
> >
> > 1. I think this is underspecified.  It’s not clear what the behaviour
> > is when the specified mailboxid does exist, but matches a mailbox with
> > a different name that what’s specified.  If I say:
> >
> >     fileinto :mailboxid “12” “xyzzy”
> >
> > …and there’s a mailbox named “xyzzy” with mailboxid 4, and a mailbox
> > named “plugh” with mailboxid 12, what happens?  It needs to be
> > explicitly clear.
>
> I thought Section 4 is quite clear that :mailboxid takes precedence if
> there is a mailbox with the correspond id. So in your case it is mailbox
> with name “plugh”.

I don't think it's clear, and would like to see the text be clearer.
That should be easy to fix.

> > 2. Did the working group consider not requiring the mailbox name at
> > all, if the mailboxid is specified?  So I could say:
> >
> >     fileinto :mailboxid “12”
> >
> > …and in the example above it would behave as though I’d said:
> >
> >     fileinto :mailboxid “12” “plugh”
> >
> > I’m not sure that it ever makes sense to specify both the mailbox name
> > and the mailboxid.
>
> RFC 5228 (basic Sieve) requires mailbox name parameter to be present.

Sure, but it could be "" (so, fileinto :mailboxid “12” "").

Alternatively, ":mailboxid" could take no argument, but would instead
change the meaning of the required string from being a mailbox name to
being a mailboxid.  Of course, that would mean you couldn't specify
both name and id on the same command, so that might not work.  What's
the use case for including both?  It still seems to me that one would
want one or the other, but why both?

Barry