idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-extra-sieve-action-registry-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5228, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC5228 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). (Using the creation date from RFC5228, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2005-05-09) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (19 August 2021) is 974 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 113, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Melnikov 3 Internet-Draft Isode Ltd 4 Updates: 5228 (if approved) 19 August 2021 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: 20 February 2022 8 IANA registry for Sieve actions 9 draft-ietf-extra-sieve-action-registry-00 11 Abstract 13 This document creates a registry of Sieve (RFC 5228) actions in order 14 to help developers and Sieve extension writers track interactions 15 between different extensions. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on 20 February 2022. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 41 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 42 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 43 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 44 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 45 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 46 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 4. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 1. Introduction 59 Sieve Email Filtering Language [RFC5228] is a popular email filtering 60 language used upon final mail delivery. Popularity of Sieve resulted 61 in a myriad of Sieve extensions that can interact with each other in 62 wonderful and complex ways. There is currently no easy way to find 63 out all actions defined by Sieve extensions published in RFCs, which 64 make it quite difficult for Sieve extension writers and Sieve 65 implementation developers to forsee interactions between Sieve 66 actions. 68 This document creates a registry of Sieve [RFC5228] actions in order 69 to help developers and Sieve extension writers track interactions 70 between different extensions. 72 2. IANA Considerations 74 IANA is requested to create a new registry for Sieve actions (see 75 Section 2.9 of [RFC5228] for details on Sieve actions). Registration 76 of both actions specified in IETF Stream RFCs and vendor specific 77 actions is allowed and encouraged. The registration template 78 contains 1) name of the action; 2) short description; 3) references: 79 one or more documents describing the action and any significant 80 updates to its definition (this field is REQUIRED for actions 81 described in RFCs and optional otherwise); 4) name(s) of Sieve 82 capabilit(ies) associated with the Sieve action being registered; 5) 83 interactions with other Sieve actions, if any; 6) flag specifying 84 whether the action cancels implicit keep (see Section 2.10.2 of 85 [RFC5228]); 7) whether or not this action can be used with IMAP 86 events in Sieve ([RFC6785]), and 8) optional comment. 88 Registration procedure for this registry is Expert Review. The 89 Designated Expert only checks that the name of the action being 90 registered matches documentation, that the description field is 91 accurate, that the correct documents are referenced and that the list 92 of relevant documents is as complete as possible. The Designated 93 Expert can't reject a registration based on personal dislike of the 94 document defining an action and should always err on the side of 95 registering, even if documentation is not complete. 97 Addition of a new reference or change to the description field goes 98 through the same registration procedure as a new registration. 100 3. Security Considerations 102 The sole purpose of this document is to create a new IANA registry, 103 so it doesn't create new security considerations for Sieve 104 implementations. 106 The new registry should help Sieve extension writers and Sieve 107 implementors track interactions between different Sieve actions, so 108 it might improve quality of specifications and implementations, 109 including security aspects. 111 4. Normative References 113 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 114 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 115 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 116 . 118 [RFC5228] Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., "Sieve: An Email 119 Filtering Language", RFC 5228, DOI 10.17487/RFC5228, 120 January 2008, . 122 [RFC6785] Leiba, B., "Support for Internet Message Access Protocol 123 (IMAP) Events in Sieve", RFC 6785, DOI 10.17487/RFC6785, 124 November 2012, . 126 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 128 TBD. 130 Author's Address 132 Alexey Melnikov 133 Isode Ltd 134 14 Castle Mews 135 Hampton 136 TW12 2NP 137 United Kingdom 139 Email: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com