From: Cyrus Daboo [mailto:cyrus(_at_)daboo(_dot_)name]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:47 PM
To: Scott Hollenbeck; 'Ned Freed'
Subject: RE: IESG Review of draft-ietf-sieve-vacation
--On January 19, 2006 1:46:00 PM -0500 Scott Hollenbeck
Thanks for the note, Ned. It leads me to two more specific
Does the document need to describe the issues noted below in an
Internationalization Considerations section? It might make sense.
My feeling is that what Ned described would be better off
being put in the base spec revision rather than vacation,
since its is applicable to base spec actions and other
extensions too. i.e. we don't need to add this directly to
What do others on the list think?
That seems like a reasonable approach. If others agree, can it be captured
as an issue to be addressed?