Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter

[Cyrus Daboo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mark,

--On Friday, October 1, 2004 1:00 PM -0400 "Mark E. Mallett" 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> (2) Produce updated sieve relational (RFC 3431), subaddress (RFC 3598),
>>     spamtest/virustest (RFC 3685), and copy extension specifications,
>
> The "copy extensions specifications" being "draft-degener-sieve-copy" ?
> Why is it listed in (2) and not in (3)?  (not that it really matters I
> guess, just wanted to make sure it's included...)

That draft is currently in the RFC Editor queue waiting to be published, 
and hopefully will be very soon - so it is correct to put it under (2) 
thought there is no RFC number assigned to it right now.

> Also the "draft-daboo-sieve-include" draft is not mentioned (which is OK
> with me -- I didn't care for the include draft the way it was but think
> that some kind of include facility is important).  I'm assuming it's
> left out because of the lack of "willingness to implement" that you
> said later, but again, just pointing out that it's not there.

There was a lack of interest to implement this expressed at the lunch 
session in San Diego, and hence it was left out of the WG items. I know 
that the CMU folks did implement it and they had no comments back to me 
after doing that. At this point we could just do a last call with it aimed 
either for Proposed or Experimental depending on whether anyone else might 
implement it in the future...

> My only other comment is about the rapid schedule on the variables
> draft- I had some thoughts that would probably not be appropriate if the
> draft is to be sent through at this rate.
>

Please post any comments you have. Note that a new -04 version of the draft 
was posted a couple of weeks ago.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo