Re: [sieve] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sieve-imap-sieve-09.txt

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> Just a question, how are we going to handle the approval of the following
>> IMAP extension?
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-imapmove-command-01
>>
>> Intuitively, I would say that adds a new imap.cause item called "MOVE" and I
>> guess at some point this (or something else) would need to be documented.
>> Would it still be possible for the editor to hammer it into the current
>> yet-to-be-RFC imapsieve document if IMAP MOVE (somehow) makes it to RFC
>> first?
>
> IMAP Sieve is already in the Editor's Queue, so it's surely ahead of IMAP MOVE.

Right, and I've addressed this in my AD review of the MOVE extension document:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imapext/current/msg04712.html
------------------------------
-- Section 4 --

Add a new Section:

   4.5.  IMAP Events in Sieve

   MOVE applies to IMAP events in Sieve [reference] in the same way
   as COPY does.  Therefore, MOVE can cause a Sieve script to be
   invoked with the imap.cause set to "COPY".  Because MOVE does not
   cause flags to be changed, a MOVE command will not result in a
   script invocation with the imap.cause set to "FLAG".

The [reference] for IMAP Events in Sieve is
draft-ietf-sieve-imap-sieve-09, which should be in the RFC Editor
queue any day now (so it won't hold this document up).
------------------------------


...with follow-up here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imapext/current/msg04714.html
------------------------------
Ned's comment:
> I think this is the right thing to do, but I have to ask: Given the timing
> of the Sieve in IMAP spec we could define a new "MOVE" cause in the base
> specification if we wanted to. Do we want to do this?

I thought about that when I wrote the above, and I can't find a good
reason to distinguish MOVE from COPY in imap-sieve.  It also wouldn't
be as simple as just defining a new cause: we'd have to decide whether
only the target-mailbox script is run, or whether the source-mailbox
script is run as well.  My sense is that it's not an important
distinction, and we don't want to go there.
------------------------------

Barry