On Mon, 2004/11/29 (MST), <markus(_at_)mhof(_dot_)com> wrote:
Our new charter also lists "Revised document on OPES rules language" as
a November deliverable. (Funny that charter approvals their time, but
deadliens are never adjusted accordingly...). Alex - does it make sense
to submit an updated document on "P" to IESG and use this as a starting
point?
Tony suggested that we take another close look at 'sieve', now that
there's a WG looking at sieve extensions. Maybe there's an opportunity
to worj tjrough sieve extensions?
My understanding is that my "Sieve versus P comparison" resulted in a
consensus that we cannot use Sieve "as is", but have to learn their
lessons (including trying to be no more complex than Sieve).
Unfortunately, the comparison missed a couple of important extensions such
as Sieve variables. Those extensions may now get into Sieve Core (also a
lesson for us -- variables are needed as a core primitive).
I am not sure what to do at this point: I can post P draft and start
working on fixing known issues, with others help. It will take a few
iterations before P Core can be submitted to IESG, IMO. Alternatively, we
can re-open the discussion on whether we can extend Sieve enough so that
it accomodates OPES needs for HTTP and SMTP adaptations, at least. I am
happy to work on P, but I need an "official" go-ahead from the WG to avoid
wasting time on a new language the group is not interested in.
How do we proceed?
Thanks,
Alex.