The draft is essentialy silent on the issue of how conflicting actions
performed by different included scripts are handled, and I don't think
that's a
viable approach. But without implementation experience I cannot say what the
best approach to fixing it would be. I am, however, pretty confident that a
straight implementation of the semantics the draft calls for is a complete
nonstarter for us.
Do you think that means one of these?:
1. The document isn't ready to go and needs more work.
2. The document should be published as Experimental for now.
3. The document is ready for Proposed Standard, but may need a rev at PS
later.
I don't see much point in delaying publication - as I say, I don't know
how to address the issues without axtually implementing it and seeing
how it works in practice, and that's not something I can do right now.
I hadn't considered publication as experimental as an option. I suppose that's
what I'd prefer, but I also have no issue with standards track. We need to
get past the notion that publication as propsed is the final step in the
standards process.
Ned
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve