Re: Naming conventions for Sieve RFCs

Nigel Swinson wrote:

> Did we decide on a naming convention for Sieve extensions?
I remember we've discussed this before, but I don't remember the outcome 
and I am offline at the moment.
> We seem to have
> either "Sieve Email Filtering: ..." or "Sieve Extension: ..." and I think it
> would be helpful to be consistent.  Looking for a precedent from the
> existing RFCs we have:
>
> RFC3431 Sieve Extension: Relational Tests. W. Segmuller. December 2002.
>     (Format: TXT=12849 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
>
> RFC3598 Sieve Email Filtering -- Subaddress Extension. K. Murchison.
>     September 2003. (Format: TXT=11151 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
>
> RFC3685 SIEVE Email Filtering: Spamtest and VirusTest Extensions. C.
>     Daboo. February 2004. (Format: TXT=17436 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED
>     STANDARD)
>
> RFC3894 Sieve Extension: Copying Without Side Effects. J. Degener.
>     October 2004. (Format: TXT=9018 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
>
> http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/sieve-charter.html lists the other
> I-Drafts out there for Sieve and I think "Sieve Email Filtering: ..." has
> the majority vote just now.  That means we should change these if possible:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sieve-variables
> Sieve Extension: Variables
>  
Your proposal should work here.

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sieve-notify-08
> Sieve Extension: Notifications
>  
I can change the title, but I think that:
SIEVE Email Filtering Extension: Notifications

is slightly more informative than:

SIEVE Email Filtering: Enotify Extension

(who would know that enotify is about notifications?)

Opinions?

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sieve-3431bis-04
> Sieve Extension: Relational Tests
>  
The same problem as above here: I think "Relational Tests" is more 
informative that "Relational Extension"