Re: Questions and remarks on draft-ietf-sieve-include-01.txt

[Aaron Stone <[e-mail]>]

I'm posting draft-ietf-managesieve-02 that addresses these comments. Thank
you!

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:36:20 +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Aaron Stone answers Stephan Bosch:
>>>  - Where the ManageSieve protocol specifies what characters are 
>>>  allowed for a script name, the include extension for the Sieve 
>>>  language does not. Would it be useful to adopt the same 
>>>  limitations? Especially things like '/' can cause problems.
>>
>> Good suggestion. I think this makes sense to give a consistent opinion 
>> on what script names should look like, but on the other hand, perhaps 
>> it's possible that someone isn't using ManageSieve but IS using 
>> include and might need to get at weird names? Do we care in that 
>> case?
> 
> If so, then they probably will use managesieve at some point anyway.
> 
>>>  - The global command is required to follow 'require' or another 
>>>  global command. I am worried what happens when other extensions 
>>>  have commands with similar requirements. Shouldn't we account for 
>>>  this eventuality?
>>
>> I don't like this restriction anyways. Any objection to lifting it?
> 
> (I don't feel qualified to have an opinion on this issue.)
> 
>>>  - The scope of the :once modifier could be a bit confusing. I am  
>>>  assuming it holds for the whole Sieve execution and not only for 
>>>  the identical include commands within the current script.
>>
>> Correct. Could you suggest how I might clarify that it's the whole 
>> execution? I feel like I'm missing the right word for being inside 
>> one file vs. being inside one delivery/execution instance.
> 
> I think that's enough of an issue that it's worth a whole sentence or
two.
> 
> I like precise words. But sometimes you can be as precise as you want, 
> and someone will read the text after being up half the night with the 
> crying baby and won't get it.
> 
> Or zero words perhaps. Why is :once justified? is "mandatory :once" or 
> ":once not supported" good enough?
> 
> Arnt