ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [sieve] New Version Notification for draft-george-sieve-vacation-time-00

2010-02-05 02:01:48
OK, I'll buy that.  Good.  So for the next version:

1. I will change ":time" to ":seconds".

Personal comments:

Since Ned has :hours, and here we're talking about :seconds, why not
also add :minutes?

I'm happy to add :minutes and :hours to the draft if we think there's
value, but it seems to add unnecessary stuff.  :seconds can cover all
the minutes and hours we'd need.  At some level, ":hours 4" looks
nicer than ":seconds 14400", but they really are the same thing.  And
something like ":hours 1 :minutes 30" seems to work out better as
simply ":seconds 5400".

Ned?

I agree. Seconds is sufficient; I don't see any need to formally define
:hours (it's only used internally by our product anyhow).

Thought experiment: what if :time referred to a time of day? All
vacation notices would be batched and sent at that time of day. What
might be a use case for this?

Mm.  ":time 00:00:00" to send the (de-duped) batch at midnight.  I
can't really see the need for that.  For the most part, you'd want the
first notice ASAP, and just have duplicates suppressed after that,
until the interval expires.

I have to agree, although I note that we could, if we wanted to, define
this in terms of the FUTURERELEASE extension.

But perhaps a better place for that would be with notify mailto;, not vacation.

The only reason I could see for delaying even the first notice until a
designated time would be if you wanted to be able to cancel them if
something has changed.  Like, maybe, "Don't tell people I'm gone
unless I'm not back by 3:00."  Even with that, what happens when you
get back at 3:01?  No, that just seems like a solution no one's asked
for nor needs.

There's also the issue that cancellations of this sort may be very difficult
to implement. I would certainly want it to be a separate extension in any case.

I'm in general favor of making it a WG document, but I'd like to think
out if there are more changes to vacation that anybody has in mind.
Should we open an "evacation" can of worms? (Probably not.) Should we
consider that a couple of vacation extensions might come together and
should be profiled as "vacation2" or something like that?

I'd be amenable to expanding the scope of this, but that would be at
the expense of delays caused by other stuff that might b harder.  This
is a simple change, and is needed (as Ned points out) if we want to
make more general auto-replies work through "vacation".  I'd rather
have this on its own, and then have "vacation2", if it happens,
incorporate this as a feature.

Agreed as well.

(P.S.  Please review notify-presence, as well, with the same thoughts
in mind (I'm about to post an update to that one.)

I was planning to do that. Unfortunately this whole SUNW->ORCL injection thing
has me a tad preoccupied :-)

                                Ned
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve

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