Well, the obvious existing model for this sort of thing is spamtest and
spamtestplus. In that case specifying spamtestplus implicitly sets spamtest.
The rationale, as I recall, is that since spamtestplus makes no sense
without spamtest, why make the require clause even longer than it needs to be?
if there's a reason not to follow that approach here I don't see it.
OK, I'll buy that. Good. So for the next version:
1. I will change ":time" to ":seconds".
2. I will change "vacation-time" to "vacation-seconds".
3. I will add text saying that "vacation-seconds" implies "vacation",
and that a script that includes "vacation-time" in the "require" list
MAY omit "vacation" from the list.
The other question is if the working group will adopt this. Should
the updated version (changing "time" to "seconds") become
draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-seconds-00 ?
WFM.
I'll hold off on updating the draft for a day or two, and if the
chairs tell me that they have approved
"draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-seconds" as a working group draft, I will
submit it that way. Otherwise, I'll submit an -01 version with the
current name.
Other comments from participants (or chairs)?
Barry
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve