Hi Ned/Stephan,
NED+mta-filters(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
[...]
>> For example, analogous to
>> application/sieve and the .siv/.sieve extension, the XML variant could
>> be specified as application/sieve+xml and with a .xsieve or perhaps a
>> .sieve.xml file extension. I haven't seen any discussions about this on
>> the mailing list.
>
>> But maybe I am just nitpicking, since I don't have a direct
>> application/need for this myself. :)
>
> No, I think it's a good idea. I just don't quite know what process to
> use.
> Alexey, do you have any thoughts on this?
I think writing a short draft with the registration would be the best
way.
Would that draft simply be a means of conveying the type to the IESG, or
would it need to be published as an RFC?
Unless you want to revise RFC 5784?
I'd rather not, but I'd also rather not publish an RFC just to do this
registration. So if publiction is needed it seems to me that a revision
would have the advantage of getting all the info in one place.
Ned
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve