[12:30:55] --- greg.vaudreuil has joined
[12:31:05] --- greg.vaudreuil has left
[13:05:48] --- jonathanclark has joined
[13:13:32] --- jonathanclark has left
[15:00:08] --- Alexandros Vellis has joined
[15:23:11] --- Alexandros Vellis has left
[15:29:11] --- Alexandros Vellis has joined
[16:05:17] --- Barry Leiba has joined
[16:16:52] --- randy has joined
[16:18:10] --- cyrus_daboo has joined
[16:20:00] --- Dave Cridland has joined
[16:20:09] <Dave Cridland> Hiya folks.
[16:21:30] <Barry Leiba> Hiya
[16:21:44] <Barry Leiba> Waiting for Alexey and some others......
[16:21:45] --- greg.vaudreuil has joined
[16:21:48] <Dave Cridland> Should I be hearing anything on the audio yet?
[16:21:59] --- kmurchison has joined
[16:22:20] --- utashiro has joined
[16:22:30] <Dave Cridland> Ah, I hear Cyrus, good.
[16:22:45] --- bernard.desruisseaux has joined
[16:23:22] --- cnewman@jabber.org has joined
[16:23:35] <cnewman@jabber.org> I volunteered to be jabber scribe
[16:23:35] --- utashiro has left
[16:23:36] <Alexandros Vellis> Annoying audio blips...
[16:23:43] <cnewman@jabber.org> Meeting started.
[16:23:53] <cnewman@jabber.org> Agenda slide
[16:24:01] --- alexeymelnikov has joined
[16:24:11] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: priority is base spec revision
[16:24:21] --- jonathanclark has joined
[16:24:37] <cnewman@jabber.org> any other issues for agenda?
[16:24:48] <cnewman@jabber.org> moving on to WG status slide
[16:25:30] <cnewman@jabber.org> Approved: vacation, variables, relational update blocked on 3028bis
[16:25:42] --- tonyhansen has joined
[16:25:46] <cnewman@jabber.org> Completed: spamtest update, IMAP flags, edit header
[16:25:52] <cnewman@jabber.org> minor issues: body
[16:26:06] <cnewman@jabber.org> Others: 3028bis, subaddress, date, loop, notifications, refuse, regex
[16:26:29] <cnewman@jabber.org> spamtest-bis slide
[16:27:10] <cnewman@jabber.org> review comment: should we keep both scales or have only one scale?
[16:27:55] --- smaes has joined
[16:27:57] <cnewman@jabber.org> alexey: want to keep both, will re-evaluate at draft
[16:28:34] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: we've implemented the percentage model
[16:28:41] <cnewman@jabber.org> Moving on to Date draft
[16:29:10] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: no chance to work on this due to insufficient time
[16:29:19] --- utashiro has joined
[16:29:36] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: two issues: need day of week, modified julian day. Will add both
[16:29:44] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: Please send him additional issues.
[16:30:08] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: hopes to have new revision of spec by end of week.
[16:30:37] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: Should this be a WG draft? Personally in favor.
[16:31:14] <cnewman@jabber.org> moving on to subaddress slide
[16:31:30] --- NFreed@jabber.org has joined
[16:31:30] <cnewman@jabber.org> last remaining issue: how flexible should address parsing/splitting be?
[16:32:29] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ken: need a concrete example
[16:32:53] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: will email Ken with example
[16:33:40] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: fine line between subaddress type stuff, but no for VERP or other encoding mechanisms
[16:34:23] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: want to let it work with any local subaddressing convention, no matter how obscure
[16:35:09] <Dave Cridland> Hang on, if you abstract the subaddressing convention, then the scripts are portable, but then the addresses involved are not. How does the user discover their local convention?
[16:35:36] <alexeymelnikov> Ned has no problem with other schemes in addition to suffix/prefix forms.
[16:35:58] <Barry Leiba> The implementation knows the local convention.
[16:36:16] <alexeymelnikov> Chris: EAI will use punycode form of local parts, subaddress can help with this
[16:36:24] <Dave Cridland> EAI might actually mean that the convention ought to be phased out in favour of an actual standard, though.
[16:36:45] <cnewman@jabber.org> Moving on to regexp draft
[16:36:57] <cnewman@jabber.org> Open issues: what to do with localization/internationalization?
[16:37:03] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ken: needs work
[16:37:37] --- hardie@jabber.psg.com has joined
[16:37:49] <cnewman@jabber.org> will keep working on regexp, push out milestones
[16:37:54] <cnewman@jabber.org> moving on to refuse draft.
[16:39:08] <cnewman@jabber.org> Open issues: how to deal with non-ASCII reason when not possible via SMTP.
[16:40:01] <cnewman@jabber.org> Open issue 2: reject interaction with editheader? Edit header requires bounce of edited text. Is that too strong?
[16:40:23] <Dave Cridland> Could be that editheader will be used to add in private or internal message, too.
[16:40:45] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: this makes us nervous. Perhaps we should do the opposite.
[16:40:49] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: concur
[16:41:18] <cnewman@jabber.org> Straw poll: who is in favor of changing editheader to say that reject SHOULD/MUST return original?
[16:41:24] <Dave Cridland> I think original should be sent.
[16:41:44] <cnewman@jabber.org> Rough consensus to return original message
[16:41:57] <cnewman@jabber.org> Question: SHOULD vs. MUST?
[16:42:13] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: would rather have MUST. Generally doesn't like SHOULD.
[16:42:16] <Dave Cridland> I'd lean toward MUST
[16:42:28] --- utashiro has left
[16:42:36] --- resnick has joined
[16:43:12] <cnewman@jabber.org> Open issue 3: vacation text on i18n implies might be useful to add :mime tag for case where DSN/MDN is generated.
[16:43:30] <cnewman@jabber.org> Question: Good idea, bad idea, don't care?
[16:43:34] <cnewman@jabber.org> Room: silence
[16:43:46] --- robsiemb has joined
[16:44:18] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: Easy to implement, but hasn't seen much use of :mime tag.
[16:44:35] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: don't edit until somebody really wants it.
[16:45:34] <Dave Cridland> Barry: You mean a sort of Caveat Scriptor?
[16:45:35] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: going back to previous open issue: should point note about making changes via editheader and then bouncing due to match caused by the change.
[16:45:41] --- dcrocker has joined
[16:46:04] --- lisaDusseault@jabber.psg.com has joined
[16:46:05] <Barry Leiba> 'ar 'ar 'ar
[16:46:11] * Dave Cridland bows
[16:46:31] <lisaDusseault@jabber.psg.com> yeah you got an actual laugh in the room there Dave :)
[16:46:50] <Dave Cridland> My wit spans oceans, what can I say. :-)
[16:47:22] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: will post message to mailing list asking for feedback
[16:47:56] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: EAI isn't going to i18n error messages in present plan
[16:48:09] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: can revive old draft for SMTP i18n error messages
[16:48:44] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: case where this will fail if move script from one environment to another which changes the nature of the refuse handling.
[16:49:00] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: can't know in advance if using variables in general case.
[16:49:10] <alexeymelnikov> Ned said that he liked my Internationalized SMTP response text draft, so maybe I should revive it
[16:49:16] <cnewman@jabber.org> Moving on to next item: MIME Loops
[16:49:33] --- pguenther has joined
[16:49:39] <cnewman@jabber.org> [speaking as self: yes, alexey, I like the draft and suggest you revive it]
[16:50:00] <cnewman@jabber.org> MIME loops open issue: how to deal with nested loops?
[16:50:25] <cnewman@jabber.org> Also: shorthand to get to type/subtype was a suggestion
[16:50:33] <pguenther> arrgh, dang timezones
[16:50:52] <Barry Leiba> Philip thought we were on mountain time.
[16:51:04] <Barry Leiba> WE, on the other hand, can just look out the window and see how silly that is.
[16:51:16] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: would like examples other than spam/virus
[16:51:36] <Alexandros Vellis> :-) Philip - we are in slide #9
[16:51:37] <pguenther> I've been reversing the direction of the swing, putting you guys an hour earlier, not later
[16:51:58] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: ability to extract part for notification -- e.g. to extract calendar part
[16:52:40] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: has usual objection to the way MIME tests are done. But does not have way to do address tests or exists test.
[16:52:48] <pguenther> a mimeparameter test would be useful in some cases too
[16:52:53] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: do like way draft separates do the test from ability to modify the body
[16:53:44] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: agrees about mime parameter
[16:54:08] <cnewman@jabber.org> note in draft about mime parameter needs work.
[16:54:15] <cnewman@jabber.org> Moving on to next slide: Notifications Draft
[16:54:42] <cnewman@jabber.org> Open issue: need way to extract message body, as body extension specifically disallows that.
[16:55:08] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: overlaps with loop comment about extracting body part
[16:55:16] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: might want way to extract first text part
[16:55:51] <cnewman@jabber.org> Open issue 2: should we push the question of error recover to the individual methods?
[16:56:16] --- utashiro has joined
[16:56:17] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: should add section describing requirements on notification methods. That would be a requirement for that section.
[16:56:23] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: not a bad idea
[16:56:46] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: anyone not like that?
[16:56:51] <cnewman@jabber.org> room: silence
[16:57:08] <cnewman@jabber.org> Open issue 3: priority vs. importance?
[16:57:36] <pguenther> so it's a transport thing, not a contents thing?
[16:57:36] <cnewman@jabber.org> Field means how important is it that the notification be delivered and be delivered quicker or slower / more or less intrusive
[16:58:23] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: how we change the name and specify what to do with it?
[16:58:32] <pguenther> how many levels? Percentage! oh, wait...
[16:58:40] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: also an issue with how many levels.
[16:59:09] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: thinks high / medium / low is sufficient.
[16:59:46] <cnewman@jabber.org> Open issue 4: script possible to generate multiple notifications. Add text about suppression of identical notifications, or is this too mechanism specific?
[17:00:19] <cnewman@jabber.org> Open issue 5: should there be mandatory to implement (mailto:)? We say there must be a default mechanism.
[17:00:50] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: believes we should not mandate a specific mechanism.
[17:01:21] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: asks Lisa directly.
[17:01:26] <pguenther> Is barry putting Lisa on the spot? Is Lisa now shepherding sieve instead of Scott?
[17:01:32] <cnewman@jabber.org> Lisa: can go along with that.
[17:02:49] <cnewman@jabber.org> [Lisa is new Apps AD]
[17:03:14] <cnewman@jabber.org> [that's partly my fault :-]
[17:03:23] <pguenther> but is she sheperding this particular herd of cats?
[17:03:34] <hardie@jabber.psg.com> she will be
[17:03:43] * pguenther waits for the evil laugh
[17:03:50] <Dave Cridland> As of tomorrow, presumably.
[17:04:17] <lisaDusseault@jabber.psg.com> *laughs evilly*
[17:04:23] <lisaDusseault@jabber.psg.com> just to satisfy Philip
[17:04:39] <pguenther> whew! had me on the edge of my seat there
[17:04:40] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: thinks 3 priorities is fine. Cautionary tale about timeouts.
[17:05:27] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: extraction of textual data from message is very sticky. Issue with using notifications to extract information from classified to unclassified net.
[17:06:23] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: issues with notification with entire message attached causing loops and bouncing. Need cautionary text: don't use this as a crappy form of redirect.
[17:06:44] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: do you want message extraction as another option?
[17:06:52] --- robsiemb has left: Logged out
[17:07:07] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: conflicting requirements from customers. Some want it disabled forever. Others insist on the feature.
[17:07:55] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: On redirect: keeping a semantic difference between redirect and notify.
[17:08:16] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: agrees. there are times when redirect is the wrong tool and notify should be used.
[17:08:41] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: anything for base spec?
[17:09:01] <pguenther> as a security consideration, say?
[17:09:07] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: perhaps warning to avoid misuse of redirect. something brief.
[17:09:15] --- robsiemb has joined
[17:09:26] <pguenther> in the base-spec
[17:09:33] <cnewman@jabber.org> moving on to slide 2 of notifications
[17:10:01] <cnewman@jabber.org> Open issue: need to bring back and update old example using denotify. Not that we should revive denotify, but examples are useful.
[17:10:09] <cnewman@jabber.org> Open issue: change tagged :method to the positional parameter
[17:10:56] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: Change the tagged :method to the positional parameter. Already broke backwards compat so might as well do this.
[17:11:08] <pguenther> if wer're breaking it that much, can we change the capability name please?
[17:11:36] <cnewman@jabber.org> Open issue: Add :from to the "notify" action
[17:11:45] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: agrees with changing the capability name
[17:11:56] <Alexandros Vellis> NOTIFYMORE
[17:11:57] <pguenther> notifyagain
[17:11:58] <Alexandros Vellis> :-)
[17:12:01] <cnewman@jabber.org> open issue: add back :options/:attributes
[17:12:22] <Dave Cridland> "youvegotmail"
[17:12:29] <lisaDusseault@jabber.psg.com> Notify'
[17:12:31] <lisaDusseault@jabber.psg.com> (notify prime)
[17:12:51] <robsiemb> notifi
[17:12:53] <Dave Cridland> Sadly so, TM by AOL, in fact.
[17:12:55] <lisaDusseault@jabber.psg.com> room laughs at Dave's crack again...
[17:13:09] <cnewman@jabber.org> Moving on to mailto draft
[17:13:14] <lisaDusseault@jabber.psg.com> CNewman reads the funny stuff out loud :)
[17:13:19] <resnick> BIFF
[17:13:25] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: got really little comment on the list
[17:13:51] <lisaDusseault@jabber.psg.com> I guess you're probably listening to the audio stream and get this :)
[17:13:53] <tonyhansen> pick one of: inform, acquaint, apprise
[17:14:14] <pguenther> audio skipping...
[17:14:16] * pguenther sighs
[17:14:21] --- smaes has left
[17:14:31] <Dave Cridland> Lisa: Yes, I managed to hear scattered laughter amongst the squeaks and skips.
[17:14:35] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: wait for notify 03 before iterate mailto and others
[17:14:48] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: Moving on to 3028bis
[17:14:57] <cnewman@jabber.org> -06 version has been released
[17:15:00] <pguenther> replied on email to Alexey
[17:15:02] <cnewman@jabber.org> also -08 version of comparator draft
[17:15:18] <pguenther> I have, obviously
[17:15:20] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: anyone read both drafts and interaction between the two?
[17:15:28] <Dave Cridland> Me too, obviously.
[17:15:31] <pguenther> please flog some
[17:15:32] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: not enough people in room have reviewed.
[17:15:38] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: will read and comment on the list.
[17:16:34] <cnewman@jabber.org> Open issues with base spec: merge reject back in with textual changes to permit MDNs and protocol level rejection?
[17:16:41] <pguenther> for bullet 2: any comments on Michael Haardt's suggested text? continue on list...
[17:16:41] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: suggest we don't do that.
[17:17:05] <cnewman@jabber.org> Open issue: map UTF-8 to mUTF-7 when working with an IMAP store?
[17:17:08] <pguenther> bullet 3: it's in there, section 5.7
[17:17:26] <pguenther> it's a "convention"
[17:17:34] <pguenther> call it a "presentation form"
[17:17:36] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: doesn't think requirement in this area is appropriate as mUTF-7 is only a "convention" in the IMAP base spec
[17:17:49] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: thinks it's important to point out mUTF-7 as a convention.
[17:18:04] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: SHOULD map to appropriate naming scheme. BTW, the one for IMAP is mUTF-7.
[17:18:17] <pguenther> that seems to match Michael Haardt's text
[17:18:18] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: Ned's agreeing with what Alexey posted on mailing list.
[17:18:33] <cnewman@jabber.org> open issue: issue about IANA template not precisely defined.
[17:19:08] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: bringing up base spec on his display
[17:19:28] <pguenther> the published extensions in other RFCs ignore the "arguments" field and always set the name and keyword to the same
[17:19:51] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: current registration has "capability name", "capability keyword", "capability arguments"
[17:20:16] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: odd because a capability might be defining a test, new parameters, etc.
[17:20:30] <pguenther> we've always set name == keyword
[17:20:34] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: Capability Name is what we call it. Capability keyword is what we put in requires
[17:20:42] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: not sure what "capability arguments" is.
[17:21:10] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: arguments doesn't make sense with multiple commands, etc.
[17:21:24] <pguenther> What's the goal of the other fields being in the registry?
[17:21:29] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: suggests list of new tests and actions in place of capability arguments
[17:23:00] <cnewman@jabber.org> Me: suggest just removing arguments
[17:23:28] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: we may need to register language tokens to avoid collisions
[17:23:31] <Dave Cridland> Somet6hing for Cyrus: Actions can be claimed by two capabilities.
[17:23:35] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: just leave this to the editor
[17:23:41] <Dave Cridland> Generally when they're backwards compatible updates.
[17:24:08] <pguenther> I'll propose changed text on the list
[17:24:50] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: as long as you're backed up by an RFC which says what to do IANA will do it. So we can just clean up the registry.
[17:24:59] <cnewman@jabber.org> Moving on.
[17:25:05] <cnewman@jabber.org> ManageSIEVE
[17:25:13] <cnewman@jabber.org> Make this a WG item?
[17:25:18] <cnewman@jabber.org> Seems like Lemonade needs it.
[17:25:39] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: still not clear what state of this draft is in lemonade WG. But getting close for it to be done and needs more reviews.
[17:25:49] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: volunteered Barry to review.
[17:25:55] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: wants to add this to the WG.
[17:26:04] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: will need charter revision to do this.
[17:26:14] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: agrees OK to add this to charter.
[17:26:23] <cnewman@jabber.org> Lisa: managesieve sounds pretty useful.
[17:26:41] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: needs to go through IESG?
[17:26:46] <pguenther> tell her to lean on Ned
[17:27:25] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: need to push base spec before Manage Sieve
[17:27:45] --- dcrocker has left
[17:28:52] <Dave Cridland> Me!
[17:28:57] <pguenther> I'll get proposed text for the various items in the day
[17:29:22] <pguenther> define "something else"
[17:29:30] <cnewman@jabber.org> Q: How many people will implement manage sieve?
[17:29:38] <Dave Cridland> I've vaguely planned on doing the ACAP Sieve stuff at some point, just because I can.
[17:29:48] <cnewman@jabber.org> A: one wavy hand in room + Dave Cridland, Alexey.
[17:29:58] <cnewman@jabber.org> Q: How many people do something else?
[17:30:09] <cnewman@jabber.org> A: one implementation.
[17:30:20] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: we do this by storing them in LDAP
[17:30:22] <pguenther> we store scripts in LDAP with a provided GUI
[17:30:46] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: fine for per-user, but not fine when scope broader.
[17:31:00] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: we would just put manage Sieve front-end on LDAP.
[17:31:01] <pguenther> I agree with Ned in all ways
[17:31:43] <pguenther> uh oh
[17:31:54] <Barry Leiba> Ned almost took his hat off for that comment, Philip.
[17:31:54] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: show of hands for manage sieve as WG item?
[17:32:00] <Alexandros Vellis> I find ManageSieve essential in that it provides a) capability keywords b) syntax checking
[17:32:02] <cnewman@jabber.org> Anyone opposed?
[17:32:05] * pguenther humms
[17:32:09] <cnewman@jabber.org> Nobody opposed
[17:32:23] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: will add date as well at the same time.
[17:32:29] <randy> The ACAP Sieve dataset provided syntax checking too :-)
[17:32:31] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: will push out base first, however.
[17:32:42] <cnewman@jabber.org> Moving on to "include" draft
[17:32:43] <robsiemb> Regardless of what lemonade winds up doing, this is probably desirable, I'm not convinced that extensions to managesieve are the right thing for lemonade's problems though
[17:32:56] <Dave Cridland> randy: In weird ways, wasn't it? Stick in sieve, then look for errors.
[17:33:11] <randy> yeah, something like that
[17:33:23] <cnewman@jabber.org> Open issue: are variables global to all scripts or local to script?
[17:33:35] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: punting on issue, no comments on scoping in draft.
[17:33:46] <randy> There were ACAP attributes that showed syntax errors and gave line number and char offset, I think, along with description
[17:33:46] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: is implementation dependent OK?
[17:34:01] <cnewman@jabber.org> Poll: who interested in include?
[17:34:05] <randy> So your GUI could highlight the errors in red or whatever
[17:34:12] <cnewman@jabber.org> two hands
[17:34:21] <cnewman@jabber.org> Q: Have thought about interaction with variables?
[17:34:36] <cnewman@jabber.org> A: don't support variables yet: haven't thought about it.
[17:34:37] <Dave Cridland> randy: Oh, there were. (or are, I use the rest of them in that dataset, just not the Sieve ones).
[17:35:11] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: given our methodology to store Sieve, we can't implement include in a meaningful way. Likes idea, but we can't get there.
[17:35:27] <pguenther> ooog, please tell me that Ned isn't storing precompiled blobs....
[17:35:27] --- utashiro has left
[17:35:41] <cnewman@jabber.org> Me: URL to ANNOTATEMORE :-)
[17:36:24] <cnewman@jabber.org> [Phil: no, but we store Sieve scripts in fragments in multi-value LDAP with comments to reassemble by part. Don't blame us the web GUI folks made that decision]
[17:36:55] <pguenther> ouch. You have my sympathy
[17:37:06] <pguenther> we managed to avoid that particular brain-damage
[17:37:17] <Alexandros Vellis> Wow, not even my web GUI is that bad
[17:37:42] <cnewman@jabber.org> Jeffrey: scope to files.
[17:37:46] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: not sure yet.
[17:38:00] <alexeymelnikov> Jeffrey: all scripts are self contained
[17:38:03] <pguenther> yeah, there's a useful case: they're called "functions"
[17:38:15] <pguenther> set a variable based on a complex test...
[17:39:13] --- Glenn Parsons has joined
[17:39:15] <cnewman@jabber.org> Jeffrey: useful case for something that's not a useful sieve script in it's own right. But doesn't have to fail the require test.
[17:39:27] <pguenther> correct, that's on the variable-scope issue, not require-scope
[17:39:57] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: each script needs to be syntacticly valid on its own.
[17:40:06] <Dave Cridland> Could you: require "include:some-file" To ensure that the requires are checkable easily?
[17:40:18] <cnewman@jabber.org> [sorry, I'm not doing a great job paraphrasing at the moment, this is moving a bit fast for me]
[17:40:53] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: don't require require for the outer script when including the inner script.
[17:41:08] <alexeymelnikov> Many: no need for the included script to include require frim the including script or vice versa
[17:41:17] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: what do we ant to do with this draft now?
[17:41:30] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: may be more interest in near future than we have right now.
[17:41:41] <Dave Cridland> Alexey: Yes, but do you need to require the included script?
[17:41:43] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: propose keeping this as individual submission for now, but see where we are in a couple months.
[17:41:52] <cnewman@jabber.org> [room: nodding heads]
[17:42:05] <cnewman@jabber.org> Moving on to exceptions/optional reqire
[17:42:20] <cnewman@jabber.org> Q: do we need some form of exception handling in SIEVE?
[17:42:31] <cnewman@jabber.org> Q: should there be a test for the presence of extensions?
[17:42:42] --- utashiro has joined
[17:43:00] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: if reject action fails because UTF-8 is not allowed, do we want to catch that and do something else?
[17:43:32] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: we had discussion about environment tests.
[17:44:00] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: Yes, we had agreed Barry would write draft to add environment tests.
[17:44:08] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: yes there should be test for presence of tests.
[17:44:18] <cnewman@jabber.org> Jeffrey: thinks two bullets are very different issues.
[17:44:45] <cnewman@jabber.org> Jeffrey: the problem with test for presence of extension is they add new syntax to language.
[17:45:00] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: No. Key design feature of sieve is that extensions don't change syntax.
[17:45:25] * pguenther proposes a "perl" extension that turns the rest of the script into a perl script
[17:45:35] <cnewman@jabber.org> Jeffrey: still two different bullets. Likes test idea.
[17:45:48] <Barry Leiba> Yeah, I was thinking Java.
[17:46:16] <cnewman@jabber.org> Jeffrey: not clear we need exception handling. We have exception handling today: if there's a runtime error processing stops.
[17:46:52] <Dave Cridland> Phil: I think checksums in TCP would prevent the script from turning into Perl, though.
[17:46:57] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: hard for our implementation, but still in favor of proposal for feature tests. But exception handling makes Ned very nervous, would prefer we avoid that.
[17:47:12] <Barry Leiba> That's the US version of "table", of course.
[17:47:17] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: alternative to exception handling, but would like error reporting.
[17:47:38] --- resnick has left
[17:47:43] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: that's a very limited form of exception handling
[17:47:50] <cnewman@jabber.org> Jeffrey: if sufficiently limited, it's OK
[17:48:13] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: is that really an interoperability issue? Or can we leave that to the implementation. Do we really have to standardize that?
[17:48:21] --- bernard.desruisseaux has left
[17:48:24] <pguenther> who's desires are important?
[17:48:26] <pguenther> the admin?
[17:48:29] <pguenther> the user?
[17:48:35] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: do you just send an error to the user?
[17:48:38] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: nods.
[17:48:42] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: that's what we do to.
[17:48:55] <pguenther> ours is similar with options to tweak where the email gets sent
[17:49:02] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: do you have a tracing feature?
[17:49:05] <pguenther> similar to barry's that is
[17:49:11] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: not yet. Majority of errors so far are syntax errors.
[17:49:23] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: just put the line of the sieve script which failed.
[17:49:36] <pguenther> that really sounds like ours, but this is all out of scope of IETF
[17:49:50] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: maybe we should just put advice in the spec or leave it up to the implementation.
[17:49:59] <pguenther> the configurablity, etc
[17:50:12] <cnewman@jabber.org> Jeffrey: SHOULD as long as we're not specific about what the notification is.
[17:50:27] <randy> (My Sieve implementation has tracing, but only admin can control. It's great for my own use but would suck for casual users. Never had time to update it.)
[17:50:31] <pguenther> wow, the blip in the audio when Jeff spoke was a neat remix
[17:50:31] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: something we forgot. What is the state of "envelope"?
[17:50:37] <Alexandros Vellis> Ah I was about to ask that
[17:50:37] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: not written yet.
[17:51:34] <pguenther> fold it into environment
[17:51:46] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: do we want it in base spec or environment?
[17:52:05] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: don't put it in the base spec. Put it in environment spec.
[17:52:28] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: will roll this into environment draft.
[17:52:39] --- randy has left: Logged out
[17:52:40] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: are we going to add environment draft to the WG?
[17:52:53] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: publish individual submission and if it's before charter change, we'll go from there.
[17:53:10] <cnewman@jabber.org> Nasty slide about lots of overdue milestones.
[17:53:17] <cnewman@jabber.org> Proposes new dates
[17:53:26] <cnewman@jabber.org> Are new dates reasonable?
[17:53:32] <cnewman@jabber.org> Need feedback from document authors.
[17:54:17] <pguenther> it's in IETF last-call right now, no?
[17:54:35] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: 3028bis for May. What's up for comparator?
[17:54:42] <cnewman@jabber.org> Lisa: Comparator will be last called in imapext.
[17:55:14] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: Comparator has been through 4 week last call, but several major comments. One revision done fixed several comments.
[17:55:54] <cnewman@jabber.org> Lisa: agreed to shepard document.
[17:56:06] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: Mark Davis's comments ran to 10 pages on this.
[17:56:32] <cnewman@jabber.org> Lisa: might not be ready to shepard this until it's been through more comments. But it's an important document.
[17:56:48] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: do you want to push this to somebody else to shepard the document?
[17:56:59] <Dave Cridland> Is Alexey offering to proxy Lisa's shepherding duties here?
[17:57:06] <cnewman@jabber.org> Lisa: thought IMAPEXT agreed to take document and therefore shepard it.
[17:57:06] <pguenther> are you volunteering, Alexey?
[17:57:24] <cnewman@jabber.org> Jeffrey: somebody, not the document editor, needs to make sure issues are addressed.
[17:57:30] <cnewman@jabber.org> Lisa: any volunteers for doing a sanity check?
[17:57:37] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: reluctantly volunteering for this.
[17:58:04] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: will try to take a look at it.
[17:58:16] <pguenther> this can't break ACAP
[17:58:17] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: do we want another last call on 3028bis
[17:58:26] <pguenther> ACAP doesn't depend on it, but rather defines them itself
[17:59:00] <pguenther> not I
[17:59:01] <cnewman@jabber.org> Lisa: anyone want another WG last call for 3028bis?
[17:59:08] <cnewman@jabber.org> room: no
[17:59:16] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: regexp draft to june
[17:59:43] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: subaddress done
[17:59:50] <pguenther> (now, there may be things the draft can do to make ACAP's update to match it easier...)
[17:59:52] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: imapflags, will go to IESG this month
[18:00:18] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: push refuse to July. Uncomfortable because originally part of base spec
[18:00:29] <cnewman@jabber.org> Alexey: would rather beat milestone
[18:00:49] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: Jul/Jun regexp, loop, notification action
[18:00:56] <Dave Cridland> Phil: No, the behaviour of certain things (like invalid input, multivalues) changed between ACAP and the comparator draft.
[18:00:58] <pguenther> loop in june seems quick to me
[18:01:00] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: may still have i18n issues with regexp, but see how it goes.
[18:01:11] <pguenther> Dave: yes, but that doesn't break ACAP!
[18:01:33] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: 3028bis interop report. Want to move to draft. Need to start work in aug timeframe.
[18:01:46] <pguenther> ACAP defines its own behavior without reference to the yet-to-be-published draft
[18:02:09] <pguenther> there hasn't been much talk about it on the list...
[18:02:20] <cnewman@jabber.org> Jeffrey: given that not-loop part of loop extension has lot of issues, Phillip's point sounds right.
[18:02:25] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: push loop to august
[18:02:45] <Dave Cridland> Phil: Sure, but the draft claims to be updating and clarifying ACAP's comparators. You may as well say it has no bearing on Sieve.
[18:02:54] <pguenther> I actually think that
[18:03:23] <cnewman@jabber.org> Jeffrey: how much work has been done on interoperability report for Sieve? If two implementations never talk to each other, how does this work?
[18:03:30] <cnewman@jabber.org> Jeffrey: thinks august is ambitious
[18:03:47] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: clear what it means, not clear how to determine success.
[18:04:11] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: can take script from one server to another and "it will do same thing", but that's not quite right
[18:04:11] <pguenther> the whole section about how sieve and ACAP are modified should be recast as a historical section
[18:04:42] <Dave Cridland> Phil: No, I think that no such section should be needed.
[18:05:00] <pguenther> 3028bis is the place to say "oh, and i;ascii-casemap is the same as en;ascii-casemap"
[18:05:16] <pguenther> (yeah, I know you object to the "en")
[18:05:23] <Dave Cridland> Phil: I think I convinced Arnt to revert that change. :-)
[18:05:33] <pguenther> aargh
[18:05:44] <pguenther> so that should get pulled from 3028bis
[18:05:48] * pguenther pounds head on table
[18:07:56] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: interop testing: we have had previous examples of strangeness in this area, so we can expect some leeway. Example is ABNF document. IESG wouldn't make it BCP, but did accept report that all ABNF features were used in multiple drafts.
[18:08:30] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: thinks this is a case to request an exception to the normative reference rule to 2822 when moving to draft.
[18:08:42] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: comparator draft?
[18:08:48] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: that one we have to wait for.
[18:08:57] <cnewman@jabber.org> Barry: what is process for moving 2821/2822 to draft?
[18:09:06] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: go whack Pete.
[18:09:23] <pguenther> yes, whacking Pete is the thing for moving 2822 forward
[18:09:41] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: may need work to shepard comparator moving to draft as part of Sieve interop.
[18:09:47] <Barry Leiba> "Whacking" with a hose, not, of course, in a "The Sopranos" kinda way.
[18:09:50] <pguenther> I did some whacking back post-Paris, but got body-slammed by work
[18:10:17] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: what impact of IEA on Sieve?
[18:10:22] <pguenther> we should all be attending EIA and thinking about it
[18:10:31] <pguenther> s/EIA/EAI/
[18:10:50] <cnewman@jabber.org> s/IEA/EAI/
[18:11:14] <cnewman@jabber.org> Jeffrey: going to be a while before EAI is something we need to refer to from a standards document.
[18:11:24] <pguenther> we'll be going for full standard
[18:11:26] <Dave Cridland> Actually, you could skip the comparator draft by moving ACAP to Draft instead. It's got multiple independent interoperable implementations. Not a lot of actual deployment, but hey. ;-)
[18:11:28] <cnewman@jabber.org> Ned: it's a conundrum if EAI is going experimental.
[18:12:21] <alexeymelnikov> Chris: create EAI Sieve extension (Ned agrees)
[18:13:10] <alexeymelnikov> Jeff: there is an issue with downgraded EAI addresses
[18:13:29] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: how IDN aware is Sieve?
[18:13:36] <alexeymelnikov> Cyrus: address IDN in Sieve?
[18:14:44] <cnewman@jabber.org> Cyrus: any other business?
[18:14:45] --- Barry Leiba has left
[18:14:48] --- greg.vaudreuil has left
[18:14:50] --- kmurchison has left
[18:14:59] --- jonathanclark has left
[18:15:00] --- lisaDusseault@jabber.psg.com has left: Logged out
[18:15:05] --- alexeymelnikov has left
[18:15:07] --- cnewman@jabber.org has left: Logged out
[18:15:24] --- utashiro has left
[18:17:12] <pguenther> Dave: we wanted to revise some of the comparator bits to start with; advancing ACAP would start by pulling the current comparator draft back into a revised ACAP spec
[18:17:17] <pguenther> that ain't any faster or better
[18:17:41] <pguenther> the issues of ACAP's handling of NULL and such are it's issues, independent of where the comparators are defined
[18:17:47] <pguenther> s/it's/its/
[18:18:09] <Dave Cridland> Phil: I really wasn't being serious. :-)
[18:18:13] --- NFreed@jabber.org has left: Logged out
[18:18:23] --- cyrus_daboo has left
[18:18:28] --- Alexandros Vellis has left
[18:18:48] <pguenther> if you were to revise ACAP, you would point to the new compartor stuff, then add text to cover the cases that the comparator draft leaves out that ACAP cares about
[18:18:52] <Dave Cridland> Phil: And as far as I can tell, the issues with NIL and invalid input ordering are partially present in the spec.
[18:19:05] <Dave Cridland> Phil: New spec, that is.
[18:19:14] <pguenther> I thought we had smacked NIL completely out of comparators
[18:19:22] <Dave Cridland> Phil: And yes, that'd be my goal if I were going to revise ACAP.
[18:19:34] <Dave Cridland> Phil: Still there as a ghost. Classifies as invalid input.
[18:20:11] <pguenther> so my point is that saying "comparators conflicts with ACAP" is only valid if it's in direct areas and not by omission
[18:20:30] * pguenther can't type fast enough
[18:21:32] <Dave Cridland> Yeah, okay - if the new spec feels that it's important not to have NIL, then that;s okay, but you need some mechanism for the containing protocol to say "I was asked to do a comparison on this thing which I cannot translate into a string".
[18:21:57] <Dave Cridland> I'd have thought that's NIL, basically, but I'm cool with it being called something else.
[18:22:30] <pguenther> no, NIL is "data missing"
[18:23:10] <pguenther> 3028bis used to say "header test of field that isn't present tests a NIL value"
[18:23:16] <pguenther> now we just say "that don't match"
[18:23:16] <Dave Cridland> Yeah, sure it is. But it happens to collate equally with invalid input in "i;ascii-numeric", which is the only comparator that has that concept defined in ACAP.
[18:23:44] --- hardie@jabber.psg.com has left
[18:23:59] <pguenther> heh
[18:24:01] <Dave Cridland> And I know it's not called invalid input, it has some long and complicated name in both ACAP and the Comparator draft.
[18:24:34] <pguenther> dang, I'm getting pulled back into an argument at work
[18:24:48] <Dave Cridland> The ordering change of invalid input is actually the technical change that worries me most. That's removed in section 3.3, but still (kind of) present in section 4.2.3.
[18:24:57] * pguenther has to run...
[18:25:07] <pguenther> ah, hmmm
[18:25:36] --- pguenther has left
[18:28:39] --- Dave Cridland has left
[18:32:04] --- tonyhansen has left
[18:32:16] --- Glenn Parsons has left
[18:32:40] --- robsiemb has left
[20:04:59] --- pguenther has joined
[20:06:34] --- pguenther has left