Re: [sieve] SIEVE WG Status

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 6/21/11 4:57 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Cyrus Daboo wrote:
>
>> I wanted to give a status update of the WG and also ask a few 
>> questions of everyone to see where we want to go. This comes at the 
>> prompting of our new AD who wants to judge the "energy level" of this 
>> WG to determine whether it makes sense for the WG to continue.
>>
>> Note that I did request a 1 hour session for the upcoming meeting in 
>> Quebec City
>>
>> The last face-to-face WG meeting was last July. Since then the 
>> following drafts have been through IETF processing and are now in the 
>> RFC editor queue:
>>
>> draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply
>> draft-ietf-sieve-external-lists
>> draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence
>> draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-seconds
>
> I think these drafts were past AUTH48 when I stopped them from being 
> published (due to the reference to draft-ietf-sieve-external-lists). 
> So the RFC Editor should be told that we want to review/fix examples 
> before publishing.

They are all showing in "EDIT" now. But I already let the RFC Editor 
know that they are no longer on AD hold, so you may want to email them 
to check on status.

>> If the WG does shut down, it seems reasonable for any of these drafts 
>> to continue on as individual contributions.
> Does our esteemed AD agree?

Your humble and curmudgeonly AD is going to ask lots of questions about 
what kind of review (both small and IETF-wide) these documents are going 
to get before he is thrilled out of his mind to take them on as 
individual submissions through the AD and declare them "consensus 
documents". If you can't generate interest in getting them reviewed in a 
WG, I'm not entirely convinced how you're going to get enough review 
without one. And I hate dealing with individual submission documents, 
especially if I've got to do all of the legwork to get them reviewed.

>>   (4) Work on a specification to describe how EAI/IDN issues should be
>>   handled in SIEVE.
>>
>> We have periodically asked about this, and most of the time there 
>> seemed very little that needed to be done in SIEVE to deal with this. 
>> One option going forward is for the WG to drop this item in favor of 
>> it being picked up in the EAI WG.
>
> I declare this to be Pete's problem either way ;-).
> Doing this in EAI would be fine.

Let's start by making it Klensin's and Yee's problem if it comes to 
that. They can make it my problem in due time.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]