[Top] [All Lists]

Re: lunch/bar bof for mta-filters?

2004-07-30 09:53:47

Hi ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com,

--On Friday, July 30, 2004 9:14 AM -0700 ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com 

--On Friday, July 30, 2004 8:18 AM -0700 ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com 

>> 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?

I think there are enough implementations (both server and client) around to warrant this. Perhaps if others are considering doing implementations they could let us known as that might tip the balance for adding it to any WG charter. Is suspect there really isn't a lot of work involved in progressing the draft.

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.

Remember that ACAP failed to actually (officially) create the registry. Chris Newman's i18n-comparator draft is supposed to do that:


So perhaps that is what we have to end up referencing. That does have normative references to stringprep and nameprep amoungst others. Sadly this might be what delays SIEVE getting to draft...

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.

I'll try to do the same - should be time enough on the flight over...

Cyrus Daboo