[Top] [All Lists]

Re: List of issues with Sieve notifications

2005-10-21 06:22:15

Michael Haardt wrote:

On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 07:30:47PM +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
If I were to review such a draft, I would not accept it, unless the
scheme name or overall syntax changed.
Why? Extensions are the "IETF way".

Yes, but extensions need to be recognized as such.  Sieve uses "require",
which I like a lot.  URIs start with the scheme, and having two schemes
with the same name, one being a superset of the other, sounds very odd
to me.
This is one reason why I suggest to have separate notification method profiles. Each profile will define which extensions to a particular URI scheme must be supported by the notification method.

You are trying to work around process issues by using different syntax. I think such approach is wrong. We shouldn't talk about this unless it becomes a problem.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>