Let's get 3028bis published

Philip Guenther wrote:

> I hope I'm not coming across as trying to dodge the issues here.  I 
> just feel we need to "keep our eyes on the prize": getting 3028bis 
> published.
Yes, we are way beyond our originally intended publication date.

> It's what, 2 years late, by the original schedule?  Issues that 
> 3028bis raises in other documents should be left to those other 
> documents, even if they've been last called.  If it's a general mail 
> agent issue and not specific to sieve, then perhaps it belongs in 
> 2821bis or 2822bis ...or in a completely new I-D.
Agreed.