Re: [apps-discuss] Processing draft-bosch-sieve-duplicate via APPSAWG

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Wed, 22 May 2013 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17FB021F920E; Wed, 22 May 2013 07:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.188
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.189, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qXbKPVuNKq-J; Wed, 22 May 2013 07:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77DA821F9092; Wed, 22 May 2013 07:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id hr14so3786175wib.3 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 22 May 2013 07:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=51mvaAYW4yyYPL6oUSyk6hyC1Anuz8jBCnA4HoCy0Pc=; b=vR9ekGRrXeaAwUeSK06BMjFyMRpZDWAWLgNtqQ0HkXMi4AaEG+HPKPwnGQSkH0b4ab a06CChwPy0eRHbpQkWkyaHundAe3eCnL4J+H+upIJhu+yxT8nQ6IN6KuI3/JEicphn91 TocARKP+ZJCvX+NBJ55Zp10NsFi1gnjvfJLpEVnj3tUWkHPl1cCVbQZXeU0PJFvqtcCV s1oN/mKvW44tzaGWVhuRP24XbEpwnTqtgatOzGf+fKCWvGhWKE8UbV03EXlPmqA0/D4L V4XXaxZoziJ44jdiwodLLvBbaDxMzv6gspF+FnlkSWGUPzm/wDdL0jd54OX1lbDebza5 fY8Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id b19mr15422885wik.12.1369233097602; Wed, 22 May 2013 07:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 22 May 2013 07:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 07:31:37 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
To: Cyrus Daboo <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f646db565bce104dd4f6c15
Cc:, IETF Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Processing draft-bosch-sieve-duplicate via APPSAWG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:31:47 -0000

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Cyrus Daboo <> wrote:

> --On May 7, 2013 at 3:24:30 PM -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy" <
>> wrote:
>  We have received a request to process the above draft through APPSAWG,
>> since there is no longer a sieve WG.  It is a relatively short document
>> and appears to fall within our charter.
>> We haven't processed a sieve extension here yet; rather, they've gone
>> through small, tight WGs so far.  Before issuing a formal call for
>> adoption, I'd like to gauge whether we have enough sieve-aware people
>> currently following APPSAWG to be able to contribute reviews and
>> constructive commentary.  A virtual show of hands, please?
> Somewhat late, but I support AppsDiscuss processing this document. It has
> already had some significant review on the ietf-sieve mailing list and is
> probably ready to go straight to last call. Most of the key sieve
> implementors are subscribed to ietf-sieve so any apps-discuss
> "announcements" should be cc'd there as well. Or would it make sense to use
> ietf-sieve as the "primary" mailing list and cc announcements to
> apps-discuss?
I'd prefer the discussion happen here, but I don't feel strongly on the

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 (when someone over there approves my post), can I get
a couple more volunteers?

-MSK, APPSAWG co-chair