Aaron Stone wrote:
On Tue, Dec 5, 2006, Alexey Melnikov
<alexey(_dot_)melnikov(_at_)isode(_dot_)com> said:
Aaron Stone wrote:
Indeed, there are a sufficient number of interoperable implementations
right now that we probably have to treat -06 as written in stone, much
like imapflags vs. imap4flags because the former was so widely deployed.
There are many problems with existing clients in handling of strings
(some clients expect only quoted or only literal strings in some places)
and in handling of SASL authentication exchanges when "additional data"
is not sent with "success indicator".
This concerns me. ManageSieve interoperability seems to be worse then
IMAP interoperability.
Ok, I am not sure where to begin tackling this. Is it as simple as "make a
chart of implementations, and test if they respond correctly to certain
inputs?"
If you or somebody else would want to help with testing interop, that
would help and would be appreciated.
What's the usual process for wrangling a spec and implementations like this one?
Having implementation experience helps in convincing ADs to publish a
document, however this is not required for publishing a document as a
Proposed Standard.
Interop report is needed when moving a document to Draft Standard. But
we are nowhere nearly there for ManageSieve ;-).