Re: [sieve] New Version Notification for draft-george-sieve-vacation-time-00

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

To clarify, based on subsequent discussion:

> A few of us have already expressed preference for Arnt's text:
>
> "If the sieve processor recognises an address belonging to the sieve
> script's owner in the To or Cc fields, then it's better to use that
> address for the vacation reply than any other addresses the script
> owner may also have."
...
> I think we can submit that text as a clarification to the existing
> Vacation RFC, through the errata process.

Note that Arnt's text does not have any normative language, no 2119
words, in it.  I'm proposing that we add informative text, though an
erratum, that suggests a good way to determine what address to use.

Good implementations will take that into account.  But no one's saying
SHOULD or MUST, here.

Shall I submit an erratum against RFC 5230?  I'll appreciate a couple
of "+1", but in the absence of any "-1" I'll do it in a couple of
days.

Barry