Re: [Extra] Comments on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-03

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Fri, 02 November 2018 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.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 536AA130DFC for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.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 tYwy8y0hgrdh for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.218.59.24]) (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 BB82012EB11 for <extra@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QZ68820TDC0012O1@mauve.mrochek.com> for extra@ietf.org; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1541194164; bh=uuorSpmgVc6o7z2iMpPveuxXNnS4FNpic3w8hpyNiTQ=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=oG9DM83SvzwwgGwL5O2gIIqoNrVJguE9RfDoE9Wg+mG8KL67UCc1ZfXyoK1Sh8I6j goZyYaXBWbYwrqcFVkkns0ZpxYh1T9NHnGTLJPgFCXBwnPlorptq+bU5s1r9oVT7gi BCAYcYOpJr8WoN2B39Fc2Yab8GLeAZv5B9mxRB9w=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QZ4Y76JY0000008A@mauve.mrochek.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, extra@ietf.org, stephan.bosch@dovecot.fi
Message-id: <01QZ687ZXFXK00008A@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2018 14:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 01 Nov 2018 10:10:26 -0700" <CAByav=hRm0ycC2EjEFW6Os1Hu7PPJQGWa0m+3R+oRE3Wyyp8Rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a519d410-babd-36ee-8343-6fe3bea3a414@isode.com> <d9522e99-5078-01d5-3645-c3b7c8b36ba3@dovecot.fi> <6b72363d-6f00-3ef7-2398-05690926b6f5@isode.com> <01QZ257P6DGE00008A@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAByav=hRm0ycC2EjEFW6Os1Hu7PPJQGWa0m+3R+oRE3Wyyp8Rw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Showalter <tjs@psaux.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/yJUqENS7SAy_yCNZld4u06spgiY>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Comments on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-03
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 02 Nov 2018 21:34:30 -0000

> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 7:11 AM Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>; wrote:

> > > Any other opinions (Ned?). I just want to make sure that if we violating
> > > some kind of architectural principle specified in the base Sieve script,
> > > than we decide to do this deliberately. (Or maybe we just agree that
> > > there is no architectural principle to begin with.)
> >
> > There was some principle in play, I think - Sieve copies this aspect from
> > Common LISP, and if memory serves, &optional in Common LISP makes all
> > subsequent parameter optional, so you can do something like: [...]


> This was exactly the idea.

> We could probably change a MUST to a SHOULD somewhere for compatibility to
> legitimize this, but this does make argument parsing a little less regular
> than it otherwise might be. (A similar argument is why you have to have
> header :contains ["To"] "whatever", instead of header ["To"] :contains
> :whatever"; one ancient version of the spec allowed any ordering.)

A future change to a SHOULD sounds like a good idea to me.

				Ned