Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt

[Aaron Stone <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 7, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:

>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Aaron Stone <[e-mail]>  
> wrote:
>> Wait, top-post here says, "is there a point to the discussion going  
>> on
>> here?"
>
> i'm confused: which top post? this top post you're posting now? (or
> another that gmail has helpfully hidden)

My top post, i.e. this sub-thread.

>
>> Are you suggesting that we not bring managesieve to publication as  
>> an RFC?
>
> if the aim is codification of existing practice then since i am not an
> existing practioner of this particular protocol, how can i object?
>
> it's been made quite clear to me that this is the priority of this RFC
> is not quality but compatibility

Ok, cool.

>
>> Are you suggested what we can do for a next-generation sieve  
>> management
>> system?
>
> Alexey Melnikov's comments about a next generation protocol
> compatiable with IMAP make a lot more sense to me. it seems to me that
> an independent protocol would be much more widely useful if it did not
> adopt the IMAP style.

Yeah, I think so, too. Unless we exposed the protocol through IMAP  
somehow, which I'm still a fan of doing, if possible.

Thanks for clearing up the angle you're approaching this from.

Aaron