Re: [Gen-art] [sieve] Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sieve-include-13

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Aaron,

On 19/12/2011 19:13, Aaron Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background
>     on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>     <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
>     Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
>     comments you may receive.
>
>     Document: draft-ietf-sieve-include-13
>     Reviewer: Ben Campbell
>     Review Date: 2011-12-13
>     IETF LC End Date: 2011-12-15
>
>     Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed
>     standard
>
>     Major issues:
>
>     None
>
>     Minor issues:
>
>     -- section 3.1, paragraph 4: "Implementations MUST NOT generate
>     errors for recursive inclusions at upload time, as this would
>     force an upload ordering requirement upon script authors /
>     generators.  However, if an active script is replaced with a
>     faulty script and would remain the active script, an error MUST be
>     generated and the upload MUST fail."
>
>     These two statements seem contradictory on a quick reading.  In
>     particular, how can the latter assertion avoid an upload ordering
>     requirement? Or do you mean faulty in some way other than being
>     recursive?
>
>
> If you're replacing an active script, it has to be correct all the 
> time, and uploads are atomic only on a per-script basis. There's a 
> risk that if you're uploading a set of scripts that include one 
> another, at some intermediate stage while some scripts are uploaded 
> but not others, they are in an invalid state. The managesieve spec 
> says that scripts must be validated at upload time. The language above 
> is trying to say that you can upload all of the scripts that may 
> include one another in any order without generating errors 
> immediately, however, if you're replacing an active script or a script 
> included by the active script, then you DO have to upload a correct 
> script right from the get-go.
It looks like expanding the text to say what you explained above might 
be in order.