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

[Cyrus Daboo <[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.

>> 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.

Thanks.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo