--On Friday, July 30, 2004 8:18 AM -0700 ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com
wrote:
>> That suits me too. I will shortly post a list of drafts and their status
>> here so we can see what needs to be discussed.
>
> Random thought: Perhaps it is time to consider forming a sieve
> working group. The goals of the group would be carefullly limited to:
>
> (1) Progressing the base sieve specification to draft. (Note that this
> means no significant changes or additions.)
>
> (2) Finishing various sieve I-Ds already on the table.
>
> What do people think about the idea?
I've been thinking the same thing myself. I think getting to draft status
is a worthy effort and probably is best done under the auspices of a WG.
Other extensions that have wide deployment right now also ought to be part
of any WG charter.
Absolutely. FWIW, the two that concern me most are the two Vs: Vacation and
variables. The first has been around way too long, and the second is way too
useful.
Do you think the managesieve stuff would also be appropriate?
My only issue with draft status is whether all the normative references are
also at draft. The current SIEVE RFC pre-dates the normative/non-normative
references split. However it does look like all the relevant ones are at
draft so we ought to be OK.
The problematic one is going to be ACAP. I would plan to ask for an exception
for that one - it is to the comparator registry, and it can be argued that the
registry is really an IANA/BCP sort of thing even though it appears in a
proposed standard RFC. I do think the registry reference is normative, however
- you need to know what the comparators do in order to build a sieve
interpreter.
I am also interested in knowing if there is any interaction with marid/asrg
that we ought to consider (e.g. SIEVE tests for SPF-type information that
can be used for additional filtering). Having an official WG may help with
determining that.
Agreed, although the MARID group has a number of really serious problems to
contend with that may make it difficult to get their attention no matter what
(and perhaps rightly so). I mean, when Richard Stallman is posting to the list
(and being told by the chairs that the discussion isn't approrpiate), you know
there's a situation.
Ned
P.S. I'm going to try to have some review comments in hand by the Wed meeting
on the various drafts. Hopefully others can do the same and we can collect an
open issues/corrections list.