I'd prefer the discussion happen here, but I don't feel strongly on the
matter.
However, I'd be happier if there were a few other reviewers/commenters in
here that are willing to support the document through the process. Now
Cc:ing sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org (when someone over there approves my post),
can I get
a couple more volunteers?
We always have a tricky situation when something belongs elsewhere as
well as on apps-discuss -- this has happened a few times as we've
branched off discussions (webfinger, json, dmarc), and will also
happen in cases such as imap and sieve stuff, as we try to bring it
into appsawg. I think the best approach is to try to cross-post when
it's stuff that's relatively low volume (such as this), and to keep
apps-discuss periodically updated when it's higher volume (such as
webfinger).
We've now had reviews of this document
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bosch-sieve-duplicate/
...by Ned Freed, Aaron Stone, and Cyrus Daboo. Alexey, too, as
shepherd. And PSA has expressed approval for handling it in appsawg.
I've seen no objections, so I think that works for bringing it into
appsawg. For review, if we could get a couple of other appsawg folks,
even some who are not otherwise involved with sieve, to review it as a
sanity check, we should be OK. Claudio can help corral a couple of
reviewers through appsdir.
We might also specifically ask Arnt Gulbrandsen and Tim Showalter for
reviews, as formerly active Sieve folks.
Barry
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve