[Gen-art] FW: Gen-ART LC review of draft-freed-sieve-environment-04.txt

I'm forwarding this because I indavertently discarded it since I've
gotten back into the habit of dealing with regular spam on the lists. 

Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ned Freed [mailto:ned.freed@mrochek.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:55 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: General Area Review Team; Ned Freed; alexey.melnikov@isode.com;
Chris Newman
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-freed-sieve-environment-04.txt

> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) 
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see 
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
> you may receive.
> Document: draft-freed-sieve-environment-04.txt
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review Date: 2008-03-28
> IETF LC End Date: 2008-04-11
> IESG Telechat date: (if known)

> Summary: Clarifications requested

> Comments:

> For "domain", "host" and "remote-host", since sieve strings are UTF-8,

> are these items expressed in UTF-8 or in ACE encoding?

ACE encoding, of course. Nor do I believe this is worth calling out in
this context. Domains and hosts appear in Sieve in many places besides
this; if this is indeed an issue (and I'm convinced it is not) the place
to address  it is in the Sieve base specification.

More generally, AFAIK the relationship between IDN and email has never
been completely nailed down - this is a part of more general problem EAI
is looking at. I suppose you could argue that since these particular
values are environmental rather than message-related they might come
under some other set of rules, but they are still part of  email as a
service so I don't think that flies.

Now, it would be interesting and useful to have a Sieve extension to
decode ACE encodings for domains. Or perhaps the right way to do it is
with a special sort of comparator. But we're going to need a bunch of
stuff in Sieve to accomodate all aspects of EAI. Maybe we should wait to
see how that shakes out.

>     "remote-host"
>               => Host name of remote SMTP client, if applicable and
>                  available.

> It would be cleaner if this was explicitly stated to be the FQDN.

Seems reasonable. I'll change it.

>     "remote-ip"
>               => IP address of remote SMTP client, if applicable and
>                  available.

> I think the representation should be defined. I assume it will be 
> dotted-decimal for IPv4, but for IPv6 will it be the format defined 
> for URIs (RFC 3986) or that defined for SMTP (RFC 2821)?

Yes, good point. This has already been brought up and discussed on the
Sieve list. I can't say I'm completely delighted with the alternatives,
but the latter seemed like the most reasonable choice so we went with
it.

				Ned
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art