Re: [Jmap] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-02.txt

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> On 11/19/20 9:54 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
> >> Don't we have the same single-script/multi-script client issue with
> >> managesieve?
> >
> > Yes. That's kind of the point.
> >
> >> Or perhaps I'm not fully understanding your concern.
> >
> >> A separate question that comes to mind, is do we want JMAP Sieve servers
> >> to be able to only support a single script?  I guess in this case, the
> >> server could simply have a single script with id "singleton" which can
> >> only be updated and (de)activated.  Any attempt to create another script
> >> or destroy the existing one would fail with a "singleton" error.
> >
> > Indeed. It seems like we're asking a lot of clients here. And if the
> > past is
> > any indication, we're likely to be disappointed by what we get.


> So, its sounds like you're making an argument that JMAP Sieve should
> always operate on a singleton.  Am I correct?

No, not really. I'm saying that the managesieve model has issues that
warrant serious consideration before we adopt it in a different context.

The single sieve model is the obvious alternative, but it may not be the only
one. Since none of this is especially difficult server-side, I would like to
hear from client devleopers what sort of model they would prefer. Or if
the multisieve model is what they really want, have them say that.

> Obviously, this takes the Sieve "include" extension of the table.

No, not really. It just means you'd have to use some other means of resolving
the includes.

(Not that I'd mind. I think include is a botch.)

				Ned