[sieve] SIEVE WG Status
Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name> Mon, 20 June 2011 15:08 UTC
Return-Path: <cyrus@daboo.name>
X-Original-To: sieve@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sieve@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0A5921F8513 for <sieve@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4cFWYBj9RJHW for <sieve@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from daboo.name (daboo.name [151.201.22.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D054D21F850E for <sieve@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8152BF8EEDE for <sieve@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:08:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at daboo.name
Received: from daboo.name ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (chewy.daboo.name [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZbFdwO-rARNt for <sieve@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:08:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from caldav.corp.apple.com (unknown [17.45.162.46]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CB0EF8EED1 for <sieve@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:08:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:07:52 -0400
From: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
To: SIEVE <sieve@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <816FC375A4D2F1E3CCDEEAA2@caldav.corp.apple.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.1.0a1 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; size="4430"
Subject: [sieve] SIEVE WG Status
X-BeenThere: sieve@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIEVE Working Group <sieve.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sieve>, <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sieve>
List-Post: <mailto:sieve@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve>, <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:08:07 -0000
Hi folks, I wanted to give a status update of the WG and also ask a few questions of everyone to see where we want to go. This comes at the prompting of our new AD who wants to judge the "energy level" of this WG to determine whether it makes sense for the WG to continue. Note that I did request a 1 hour session for the upcoming meeting in Quebec City The last face-to-face WG meeting was last July. Since then the following drafts have been through IETF processing and are now in the RFC editor queue: draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply draft-ietf-sieve-external-lists draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-seconds These should all be published soon (having mostly been blocked on external-lists which was recently approved). Thanks to everyone for their work on these. There has been a WG last call on the draft-ietf-sieve-include document and an update to that will be available very shortly so that we can continue with IETF processing of that. All our other drafts are currently expired. From our charter, here are the outstanding items that have previous had drafts published: (1) Finish work on existing in-progress Working Group documents: (b) Notify SIP (draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message) (c) RegEx (draft-ietf-sieve-regex) (e) Sieve in IMAP (draft-ietf-sieve-imap-sieve) (2) Finalize and publish the following SIEVE extensions as proposed standards: (d) Convert messages (draft-melnikov-sieve-convert) Can the authors of these documents please provide a status update and indicate whether they intend to continue work on them? Can we also have other people comment on whether they intend to implement, or at least review or help with, any of these drafts? If the WG does shut down, it seems reasonable for any of these drafts to continue on as individual contributions. At the very least, if we are going to continue work on them I would like to see updates published in time for discussion at the IETF meeting (July 11th cut-off for draft submission). We have a bunch of other items on our charter which I have listed below with some of my own comments on what I think should happen with them. Please comment on these yourselves so we can decide whether to continue or drop these from the charter if we decide the WG should continue on. (3) Work on a specification for iCalendar and vCard extraction, and cooperate with the VCARDDAV WG for address book tests in Sieve. I suspect I might have been one of the primary movers for this particular topic, but at this point I don't it is relevant any more. So I would be in favor of dropping this. (4) Work on a specification to describe how EAI/IDN issues should be handled in SIEVE. We have periodically asked about this, and most of the time there seemed very little that needed to be done in SIEVE to deal with this. One option going forward is for the WG to drop this item in favor of it being picked up in the EAI WG. (5) Work on a "Benefits of SIEVE" guide for client and server vendors that: (a) Describes the SIEVE protocol and its suite of extensions. (b) Explains the benefits of server-side filtering in practical terms. (c) Shows how client-side filtering can be migrated to SIEVE. Whilst there was a lot of initial enthusiasm for this when we originally did a re-charter, there has been no progress in developing a document. At this point I would propose we drop this from the charter. (6) Produce one or more informational RFCs containing a set of test scripts and test email messages that are to be filtered by the scripts, and the expected results of that filtering. This will serve as the basis of a interoperability test suite to help determine the suitability of moving the base specification and selected extensions to Draft status. Again there was initial enthusiasm for this, but nothing has materialized, so I would also propose dropping this from the charter. Next question: does anyone have any new SIEVE work they would like to propose at this time? I don't think anyone can deny this WG has been successful over the years in addressing the needs of SIEVE implementations, even if at our own, sometimes slow, pace. Shutting it down now would not be unreasonable, but I think we do need to prove the utility of keeping it alive. So please chime in with your thoughts. -- Cyrus Daboo
- [sieve] SIEVE WG Status Cyrus Daboo
- Re: [sieve] SIEVE WG Status Barry Leiba
- Re: [sieve] SIEVE WG Status Barry Leiba
- Re: [sieve] SIEVE WG Status Likepeng
- Re: [sieve] SIEVE WG Status Stephan Bosch
- Re: [sieve] SIEVE WG Status Pete Resnick
- Re: [sieve] SIEVE WG Status Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [sieve] SIEVE WG Status Pete Resnick
- Re: [sieve] SIEVE WG Status NED+mta-filters
- Re: [sieve] SIEVE WG Status Barry Leiba
- Re: [sieve] SIEVE WG Status Stephan Bosch
- [sieve] Update, was Re: SIEVE WG Status Cyrus Daboo