Re: [sieve] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-seconds-00

[[e-mail]]

> Hi Barry,

> --On September 29, 2010 2:08:37 AM -0400 Barry Leiba
> <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >> Section 2: a maximum of 2**31 seems a little excessive. Also, the base
> >> vacation spec does allow sites to override the maximum value (:days MUST
> >> be
> >> > 7, SHOULD be > 30). I think it makes sense to at least allow a similar
> >> maximum limit for :seconds. I would suggest MUST be >= 86,400 (1 day).
> >>
> >> Section 2: base vacation spec does not allow a minimum of zero. Why do we
> >> allow it here? If it is OK here, perhaps we should add some text calling
> >> this out as one key difference from the base vacation behavior.
> >
> > Including Ned's comments to this also, I've made the text this:
> >
> >       The time value is specified in seconds, and MUST be greater than
> > or equal to
> >       0 and less than 2**31.  All valid values MUST be accepted
> > without error, but
> >       sites MAY define a minimum value to actually be used if a smaller
> > value is       specified, and/or a maximum value to be used if a larger
> > value is specified.
> >       If a site imposes a maximum value, that value MUST be at least
> > 86400 (one day).
> >
> >       If 0 is specified and used, it means that all auto-replies are
> >       sent, and no attempt is made to suppress consecutive replies.
> >       This changes the base vacation specification, which does not
> > allow ":days 0";
> >       the change is necessary to allow operation of an auto-responder
> >       (see <xref target='I-D.ietf-sieve-autoreply' />).
> >
> > ...and I've added an informative reference to sieve-autoreply.  Please
> > comment.

> Works for me.

Yes, this looks good.

> >> Section 4: Second sentence seems a little weak. It only says
> >> implementations "SHOULD consider the number of auto-replies ...
> >> generated". It does not state why that is important, or what might be
> >> done to alleviate any problem related to it. So I think we need some
> >> more text here.
> >
> > Text is now this:
> >
> >       Security considerations for the Sieve Vacation extension
> >       <xref target='RFC5230' /> apply equally here.  In addition,
> >       implementations SHOULD consider the number of auto-replies that
> >       might be generated by allowing small values of ":seconds"
> > (including 0),       and MAY impose additional limits on that number.
> >       See the Security Considerations section of RFC 3834 <xref
> > target='RFC3834' />
> >       for a fuller discussion.
> >
> > ...and I've added an informative reference to RFC 3834 (I had
> > previously thought that the reference to 5230 and *its* reference to
> > 3834 sufficed).  Please comment.

> Works for me.

And for me. Hopefully the IESG wlil agree...

				Ned