Thank you! I took on the document at a time when I had time to work on
such things, and shortly thereafter a project at my day job expanded to
absorb all waking hours for a few months. Apologies for the delay this
caused; I look forward to finishing up the document as soon as possible.
I've adopted all of the changes suggested, albeit some with editorial
changes, with one exception:
The Sieve interpreter MUST carry out one of the
following actions (listed in order from most to least preferred),
SHOULD carry out the most preferable action, and
SHOULD fall back to lesser actions if a preferred action fails.
If we change one of those SHOULDs to MUST then I think we have to change
both. Note that it prevents people who have a good reason to take things
slightly out of order to do so and remain compliant. I am of the mind
that SHOULD makes more sense because it allows for wiggle room.
That's the issue I was getting at when I said that changing this to a MUST
requires additional qualification, e.g. add "possible" to the end so you have:
The Sieve interpreter MUST carry out one of the
following actions (listed in order from most to least preferred),
MUST carry out the most preferable action possible, and
MUST fall back to lesser actions if a preferred action fails.
You cannot say just "MUST carry out the most preferable action" because that
means you are required to carry out the first action on the list. That's
clearly nonsensical.
Again, I have no problem with making such a change if it makes people happier
but I think the text is fine as-is.
Ned