[Standards] [Fwd: Protocol Action: 'Sieve Notification Mechanism: xmpp' to Proposed Standard]

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Sat Feb 23 01:27:17 UTC 2008


FYI.

-------- Original Message --------
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce at ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab at iab.org>,        RFC Editor
<rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org>,        sieve mailing list
<ietf-mta-filters at imc.org>,        sieve chair <sieve-chairs at tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Sieve Notification Mechanism: xmpp'
to Proposed Standard
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:36:14 -0800 (PST)


The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Sieve Notification Mechanism: xmpp '
   <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-xmpp-09.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Sieve Mail Filtering Language Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Lisa Dusseault and Chris Newman.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-notify-xmpp-09.txt

SIEVE notify extension WG Chairs Write-up for IESG.

draft-ietf-sieve-notify-xmpp-05 - Proposed Standard

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

          Shepherd: Cyrus Daboo <mailto:cyrus at daboo.name> I have
          personally reviewed this document and believe it ready for
          submission to the IESG.

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

          It has had adequate review from WG members. Not from non-WG
          members. No concerns with the nature of those reviews.

   (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

          No.

   (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

          No concerns with this document.

   (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

          There is strong WG consensus behind this.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

          No.

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

          ID nits were checked. Whilst some warnings appear, the draft
          in fact was correct.

   (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

          References are split into two sections. There are two
          normative references to the SIEVE base spec revision and the
          notify extension drafts which have already been submitted to
          the IESG.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

          Yes.

   (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

          Yes.

   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up?  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary
             Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
             and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
             an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
             or introduction.

          Working Group Summary
             Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
             example, was there controversy about particular points or
             were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
             rough?

          Document Quality
             Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
             significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
             implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
             merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
             e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
             conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
             there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
             what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
             review, on what date was the request posted?

          Personnel
             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
             Responsible Area Director? Is an IANA expert needed?

Technical Summary

The SIEVE notify-xmpp extension defines how to use an xmpp URI with the
SIEVE notify extension to generate xmpp notifications in response to
incoming email matching specified SIEVE criteria.

The security considerations section covers several identified security
concerns.

Working Group Summary

This document has been discussed and reviewed in the SIEVE Working Group.
There is strong consensus in the Working Group to publish this document
as a Proposed Standard.

Document Quality

Several implementers have indicated they are interested in implementing
this extension but it is not a priority item for them right now.

Personal

Document Shepherd: Cyrus Daboo <mailto:cyrus at daboo.name>
AD: Lisa Dusseault <mailto:lisa at osafoundation.org>


-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080223/e9f46c54/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list