[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 17 December 2018 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4FC1126F72; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:14:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: extra@ietf.org, draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154507769480.4171.7860732594241016456@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:14:54 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/2xw2HuhAWxG1TQC6cgmdGsDmoD8>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:14:55 -0000

Reviewer: Stephen Farrell
Review result: Ready

As stated in the draft I see no new security issues here, given that SIEVE
already includes the ability to deliver messages and create mailboxes.

A non-security comment, that you should feel free to ignore: as a mail user it
is irritating to have multiple folders (that may or may  not have a 
"special-use" attribute associated with 'em) created by multiple MUAs and into
which messages can be deposited in a manner that's unpredictable to me as a
user . I understand that this spec is already trying to help with that, by
reducing the likelihood that such redundant folders get created. But I already
have a bunch of those folders, so while this is likely the wrong place for such
text, I'd have been happier if the guidance for what to do when there's >1
matching special-use mailbox had been more deterministic, even when the
SIEVE-supplied default one doesn't exist. For example, if you'd been able to
say to sort the matching folders in some way and then pick the first that'd be
better I think, but maybe there are reasons why you can't do that in SIEVE.
(I'd be even happier if someone was working on specs/tooling to help merge all
those folders somehow, but that's definitely out of scope here.)