Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-08

Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> Hi, Alexey,

Hi Spencer,

> Thanks for the quick response back... now I can remember what I said 
> in the review ;-)
>
> Spencer
>
>> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>
 [...]

>>> 5.  Security Considerations
>>>
>>>   Extensions defined in this document deliberately don't provide a way
>>>   to modify annotations.
>>>
>>> Spencer: The next two paragraphs punt to "same as sieve script" - 
>>> could you
>>> provide a specific reference for the reader here?
>>
>> Reference to the Sieve document?
>
> If that's where the security considerations for sieve scripts are 
> located - that would be fine.

After thinking more about this: RFC 5228 (Sieve base) doesn't describe 
how Sieve scripts are stored and how to handle failure to retrieve them 
- this is out of scope for both documents. However I can add an example 
of what I meant here - if a Sieve script is stored in LDAP and the 
script can't be retrieved when a message is processed, then the agent 
performing Sieve processing can, for example, assume that the script 
doesn't exist, or delay message delivery until the script can be 
retrieved successfully. Annotations should be treated as if they are a 
part of the script itself, so a temporary failure to retrieve them 
should be handled in the same way as a temporary failure to retrieve the 
Sieve script itself.

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