[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Protocol Action: 'Sieve Notification Mechanism: xmpp' to Proposed Standard
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
The IESG contact persons are Lisa Dusseault and Chris Newman.
A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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?
(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
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.)
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
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
(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?
(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?
(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:
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
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
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?
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director? Is an IANA expert needed?
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
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.
Several implementers have indicated they are interested in implementing
this extension but it is not a priority item for them right now.
Document Shepherd: Cyrus Daboo <mailto:cyrus@xxxxxxxxxx>
AD: Lisa Dusseault <mailto:lisa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>