Re: Questions and remarks on draft-ietf-sieve-include-01.txt

[Aaron Stone <aaron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Of course I meant draft-ietf-sieve-INCLUDE-02. I added an informative
reference to managesieve, hence the copy-paste buffer error :)

On Mon, 04 May 2009 14:24:51 -0700, Aaron Stone <aaron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> I'm posting draft-ietf-managesieve-02 that addresses these comments.
Thank
> you!
> 
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:36:20 +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen
> <arnt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Aaron Stone answers Stephan Bosch:
>>>>  - Where the ManageSieve protocol specifies what characters are 
>>>>  allowed for a script name, the include extension for the Sieve 
>>>>  language does not. Would it be useful to adopt the same 
>>>>  limitations? Especially things like '/' can cause problems.
>>>
>>> Good suggestion. I think this makes sense to give a consistent opinion 
>>> on what script names should look like, but on the other hand, perhaps 
>>> it's possible that someone isn't using ManageSieve but IS using 
>>> include and might need to get at weird names? Do we care in that 
>>> case?
>> 
>> If so, then they probably will use managesieve at some point anyway.
>> 
>>>>  - The global command is required to follow 'require' or another 
>>>>  global command. I am worried what happens when other extensions 
>>>>  have commands with similar requirements. Shouldn't we account for 
>>>>  this eventuality?
>>>
>>> I don't like this restriction anyways. Any objection to lifting it?
>> 
>> (I don't feel qualified to have an opinion on this issue.)
>> 
>>>>  - The scope of the :once modifier could be a bit confusing. I am  
>>>>  assuming it holds for the whole Sieve execution and not only for 
>>>>  the identical include commands within the current script.
>>>
>>> Correct. Could you suggest how I might clarify that it's the whole 
>>> execution? I feel like I'm missing the right word for being inside 
>>> one file vs. being inside one delivery/execution instance.
>> 
>> I think that's enough of an issue that it's worth a whole sentence or
> two.
>> 
>> I like precise words. But sometimes you can be as precise as you want, 
>> and someone will read the text after being up half the night with the 
>> crying baby and won't get it.
>> 
>> Or zero words perhaps. Why is :once justified? is "mandatory :once" or 
>> ":once not supported" good enough?
>> 
>> Arnt