[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Naming conventions for Sieve RFCs

2007-08-13 02:45:39

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

RFC3894 Sieve Extension: Copying Without Side Effects. J. Degener.
    October 2004. (Format: TXT=9018 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) 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:
Sieve Extension: Variables
Your proposal should work here.
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?)

Sieve Extension: Relational Tests
The same problem as above here: I think "Relational Tests" is more informative that "Relational Extension"

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