Re: [Extra] I-D Action: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-01.txt

"Chris Newman" <chris.newman@oracle.com> Thu, 19 July 2018 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <chris.newman@oracle.com>
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 A402D130E34 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com
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 uIeiKhtsEeTJ for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userp2120.oracle.com (userp2120.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FCDD130DD2 for <extra@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w6JNNVFb060054; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 23:26:42 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type; s=corp-2018-07-02; bh=WZzVnVkAqrI8GyNAacFNTqIGL0GmlwyXV7HXjR7wGmk=; b=YnEFPU52sWUvrvKGMMefzn+DW32rsaiH62S0oQyoznDwqb1CEeckWVWGMUMzY09Yx7zM 2hE3uZ5xqv6S3QVv4lalw5Fzm5ude57XsTa4JCMGBTStd88YZJFx8vmwwn9BPCMSnJ+q M7Q0Xm8PdOOvPkcfcbNa/A4GA0YEbPKHQSTeQj4S0+Uf5h3grSfNdGFd58Cjs/QKtiQy UZpk/P03/zR+GnTOPybcvG4dV/X/dPhRVe/xeg2l/DmlBrkebV2YsLjo5n6pglfhUPUa QYGq7KDGc2v2wyrB8aia1l3nm0azoEF8tBaKYCx3LC1jHtfjJt+mq6Y5mx4Lw38nn2ku tg==
Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2k9yjx96bd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 19 Jul 2018 23:26:41 +0000
Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w6JNQe2b003015 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 19 Jul 2018 23:26:41 GMT
Received: from abhmp0006.oracle.com (abhmp0006.oracle.com [141.146.116.12]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w6JNQesB013083; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 23:26:40 GMT
Received: from [31.133.140.238] (/31.133.140.238) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:26:40 -0700
From: Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Cc: extra@ietf.org, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, Stephan Bosch <stephan.bosch@dovecot.fi>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 19:26:39 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.11.3r5509)
Message-ID: <34620C41-2199-4F95-A286-17C81CF2744D@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <01QV28UQXAS4000051@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <151533655607.10858.793231788332492256@ietfa.amsl.com> <ce56fc8f-366a-8e1e-2f00-1ed22da28d15@dovecot.fi> <01QNLYA7BLVQ000051@mauve.mrochek.com> <83ddcadc-b756-91c1-3664-81955cd8f0d8@dovecot.fi> <01QTO3THVZ5I00AI1F@mauve.mrochek.com> <53350c64-d021-7f17-86b8-f1b118791cf5@dovecot.fi> <01QV1PSEOL14000051@mauve.mrochek.com> <CF99C6E6-B755-469B-B25A-5929B08338DC@oracle.com> <01QV28UQXAS4000051@mauve.mrochek.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=8959 signatures=668706
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1806210000 definitions=main-1807190244
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/vYPxZ9UOJ0ARKDD8b1QDQJZ6zik>
Subject: Re: [Extra] I-D Action: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-01.txt
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 23:26:51 -0000

On 19 Jul 2018, at 18:55, Ned Freed wrote:
>> I believe that's an incorrect interpretation of the spec. RFC 6154
>> states:
>
>>     ...  If the client specifies the "SPECIAL-USE" selection option,
>>     the LIST command MUST return only those mailboxes that have a
>>     special-use attribute set.  If the client specifies the
>> "SPECIAL-USE"
>>     return option, the LIST command MUST return the new special-use
>>     attributes on those mailboxes that have them set. ...
>
> See the beginning of the paragraph you neglected to quote. It's quite 
> clear
> that  this is in the context of LIST-EXTENDED, not unextended LIST. 
> This is
> reiterated in the ABNF.
>
>> This spec applies to all servers that advertise SPECIAL-USE. Those 
>> two
>> MUST clauses do not have an exception for servers that do not 
>> advertise
>> LIST-EXTENDED. The example in section 5.2 supports this 
>> interpretation,
>> since it does not include LIST-EXTENDED in the capabilities response.
>
> So what you're saying is that despite the fact that the section in 
> question is
> specifically about using extended list - unextended list is covered in 
> section
> 5.1 - the lack of the list-extended list in the example capabilities 
> is
> sufficient reason to believe that the presence of the special-use 
> cability
> magically enables the RETURN clause component of the special use 
> extension and
> nothing else?

My reading matches our implementation. It would not surprise me if it 
matches most (perhaps all) implementations.

Our implementation implements LIST-EXTENDED except for the 
multiple-list-pattern feature. As a result, we can not advertise the 
LIST-EXTENDED extension. Implementing the multiple-list-pattern feature 
would require at least two solid weeks of development effort for our 
implementation; I have no plans to do that work.

We interpret and implement the STATUS-in-LIST extension the same way 
(RFC 5819). That one is a bit more straightforward since advertising 
that capability would be meaningless by itself absent this 
interpretation.

> If this is indeed how this is supposed to be interpreted it needs to 
> be
> clarified with an errata, because your reading is frankly pretty 
> tortuous.

Since the specification does not match reality around the MAY/SHOULD 
issue, it needs a revision. Errata is not a good way to handle something 
like this.

		- Chris