Hi Mark,
--On Friday, October 1, 2004 1:00 PM -0400 "Mark E. Mallett"
<mem(_at_)mv(_dot_)mv(_dot_)com> wrote:
(2) Produce updated sieve relational (RFC 3431), subaddress (RFC 3598),
spamtest/virustest (RFC 3685), and copy extension specifications,
The "copy extensions specifications" being "draft-degener-sieve-copy" ?
Why is it listed in (2) and not in (3)? (not that it really matters I
guess, just wanted to make sure it's included...)
That draft is currently in the RFC Editor queue waiting to be published,
and hopefully will be very soon - so it is correct to put it under (2)
thought there is no RFC number assigned to it right now.
Also the "draft-daboo-sieve-include" draft is not mentioned (which is OK
with me -- I didn't care for the include draft the way it was but think
that some kind of include facility is important). I'm assuming it's
left out because of the lack of "willingness to implement" that you
said later, but again, just pointing out that it's not there.
There was a lack of interest to implement this expressed at the lunch
session in San Diego, and hence it was left out of the WG items. I know
that the CMU folks did implement it and they had no comments back to me
after doing that. At this point we could just do a last call with it aimed
either for Proposed or Experimental depending on whether anyone else might
implement it in the future...
My only other comment is about the rapid schedule on the variables
draft- I had some thoughts that would probably not be appropriate if the
draft is to be sent through at this rate.
Please post any comments you have. Note that a new -04 version of the draft
was posted a couple of weeks ago.
--
Cyrus Daboo