idnits 2.17.1 draft-melnikov-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 (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 (March 22, 2021) is 1131 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 119, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 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) March 22, 2021 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: September 23, 2021 8 IANA registry for Sieve actions 9 draft-melnikov-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 September 23, 2021. 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 41 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 3. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 1. Introduction 61 Sieve Email Filtering Language [RFC5228] is a popular email filtering 62 language used upon final mail delivery. Popularity of Sieve resulted 63 in a myriad of Sieve extensions that can interact with each other in 64 wonderful and complex ways. There is currently no easy way to find 65 out all actions defined by Sieve extensions published in RFCs, which 66 make it quite difficult for Sieve extension writers and Sieve 67 implementation developers to forsee interactions between Sieve 68 actions. 70 This document creates a registry of Sieve [RFC5228] actions in order 71 to help developers and Sieve extension writers track interactions 72 between different extensions. 74 2. IANA Considerations 76 IANA is requested to create a new registry for Sieve actions (see 77 Section 2.9 of [RFC5228]). The registration template contains 1) 78 name of the action, 2) short description, 3) one of more document 79 describing it and any significant updates (references), 4) name(s) of 80 Sieve capabilit(ies) associated with the Sieve action being 81 registered, 5) interactions with other Sieve actions, if any and 6) 82 flag specifying whether the action cancels implicit keep (see 83 Section 2.10.2 of [RFC5228]). 85 [[Optional "comment" field?]] 87 Registration procedure for this registry is Expert Review. The 88 Designated Expert only checks that the name of the action being 89 registered matches documentation, that the description field is 90 accurate, that the correct documents are referenced and that the list 91 of relevant documents is as complete as possible. The Designated 92 Expert can't reject a registration based on personal dislike of the 93 document defining an action and should always err on the side of 94 registering, even if documentation is not complete. 96 Addition of a new reference or change to the description field goes 97 through the same registration procedure as a new registration. 99 3. Open Issues 101 [[This section should be empty before publication]] 103 Should we include information for IMAP Sieve (RFC 6785)? 105 Shall vendor specific actions be allowed to be registered? 107 4. Security Considerations 109 The sole purpose of this document is to create a new IANA registry, 110 so it doesn't create new security considerations for Sieve. 112 The new registry should help Sieve extension writers and Sieve 113 implementors track interactions between different Sieve actions, so 114 it might improve quality of specifications and implementations, 115 including security aspects. 117 5. Normative References 119 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 120 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 121 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 122 . 124 [RFC5228] Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., "Sieve: An Email 125 Filtering Language", RFC 5228, DOI 10.17487/RFC5228, 126 January 2008, . 128 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 130 TBD. 132 Author's Address 134 Alexey Melnikov 135 Isode Ltd 136 14 Castle Mews 137 Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2NP 138 UK 140 EMail: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com