Subject: Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter

From: "Mark E. Mallett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:00:28 -0400

On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:13:41PM -0700, [email-masked] 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...)

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.

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.

-mm-

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:47:28 -0400

Hi Mark,

> 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.

> 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...

> 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

---

From: "Mark E. Mallett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:58:10 -0400

> was posted a couple of weeks ago.

Saw that..  One thing I wondered is whether it was appropriate to open
up more conversation about variables on this list in light of the fact a
new working group is being created (making the bold assumption that I'd
be admitted to it, of course :-) ).  I'm guilty of waiting way too long
to comment, unfortunately.

mm

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:04:47 -0400

Hi Mark,

--On Friday, October 1, 2004 1:58 PM -0400 "Mark E. Mallett" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

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

It is entirely appropriate to do that, the WG is merely a continuation of 
the work done on the mailing list. There is no reason to delay work on the 
drafts waiting for the WG to actually be setup (assuming we do get approval 
from ADs and IESG).

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Jutta Degener <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:10:47 -0700

> guess, just wanted to make sure it's included...)

By the time Ned's document is published,
the copy extension is very likely to have become an RFC.

Jutta

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:39:13 -0700 (PDT)

> to comment, unfortunately.

It is entirely appropriate to start talking about any draft at this point,
regardless of what our WG status is. Although I for one hope we don't make
extensive changes to variables at this point ;-)

				Ned

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:23:43 -0700 (PDT)

> ...

> said later, but again, just pointing out that it's not there.

The general consensus at the last IETF meeting seemed to be that this
one doesn't belong on the list of WG deliverables now. Maybe later...

				Ned

---

From: "Mark E. Mallett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 10:55:20 -0400

> thought there is no RFC number assigned to it right now.

Ah... thanks.  Saw the notice yesterday, in fact: RFC3894

   ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3894.txt

mm