SIEVE WG minutes - Stockholm, Jul. 2009

Intro from chairs wrt document status: one RFC published, one in editor queue, two in IESG processing. Several drafts still need action. Aaron Stone is new co-chair.

Auto-reply discussion. Individual submission. Discussion of document and issues showed some degree of interest. Consensus was to keep as an individual submissions but discuss on WG list.

Notary. -deliverby extensions added. Two week last call starts today.

Notify SIP. Still need another RAI review.

Include. New draft produced. Last issue relates to use of globals. Aaron to update spec with a "strict" requirement. Need a shepherd for this as both co-chairs are authors. Barry volunteered.

IMAP-SIEVE. Various issues: identity - who is the script running for - interaction with permissions and shared mailbox. Needs more thought. Annotations - remove from this spec and do as an extension later. Redirect - ask on mailing list for use cases for this before deciding whether to keep it in or not. Editheader - interaction with redirect and fileinto? Seems reasonable to keep this. IMAP4Flags - should be required. Spam/virus test - take to list for further discussion as to whether it is needed. Question also arose on runtime exception handling - needs to be discussed more.

External lists. Debate on use of URI to identify list. Proposal hashed out is to use "kind data" (two parameters) format to identify list, where "kind" can be registered (with a default of "server"). :list will change to matchlist as per Ned's comment.

RegEx. Discussion of interaction with other extensions. Editheader interaction may be complicated and need to be restricted. Requirement that regex's can be limited. Substitution is important to have. Jeff/Ned have freedom to choose syntax. Interaction with comparators - are implementors allowed to be lazy? No consensus on that.

EAI. Matching double-address syntax. Also interaction with downgrade. Need to wait to see what EAI WG decide for downgrade.

Benefits document. Nothing done yet.

SIEVE to draft? Has been more than 6 months since revised RFC came out. Issue is interop report. Need to put together test scripts and messages to show that results are the same across different implementations.

Next meeting: plan to meet in Hiroshima, may have interim.