Re: Chris Newman's comment on draft-ietf-sieve-notify

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> 
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Aaron Stone wrote:
>>  
>>> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 12:18 +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Chris has posted the following comment during the IESG review:
>>>>      
>>>>> An issue with nomenclature that I recommend fixing.  This
>>>>> document uses the term "importance" with a completely different
>>>>> meaning from the "importance" header in the Header Registry.
>>>>> Indeed, in this document, the term "importance" has the same
>>>>> meaning as the "priority" header in the mail headers registry and
>>>>> the "urgency" header in the XMPP registry. I would prefer this
>>>>> used consistent terminology.  I recommend ":urgency" or
>>>>> ":priority" instead of ":importance".  I understand the change
>>>>> would be annoying this late in the process given the notify XMPP
>>>>> document has to be updated as well, which is why I'm not making
>>>>> this a discuss issue. But please consider this seriously.
>>>>>         
>>>> Are people Ok with changing the tag name? Are there any
>>>> implementations of the latest draft?
>>>>
>>>> If there is no WG consensus to change the tag name, authors can
>>>> update the tag description to use consistent terminology.
>>>>       
>>> I am comfortable with a change to either name. Matching the keyword
>>> and terminology of both mail and xmpp should be a priority, IMHO. (If
>>> that means a vote for ':urgency' then so it is :)
>>>     
>> Just to be clear, a tag name of ":priority" would not necessarily cause
>> confusion in XMPP.
>>   
> Speaking as a WG member (and not as a co-editor/chair): I dislike 
> changing the document to use :priority, because :priority was used in an 
> older version of the document and is already deployed.
> So I would prefer to either change to :urgency or keep :importance, but 
> adjust terminology in order to clear any confusion.
> 
> Any other opinions?

I don't have a preference.

Peter