Subject: Naming conventions for Sieve RFCs

From: "Nigel Swinson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:03:41 +0100

Did we decide on a naming convention for Sieve extensions?  We seem to have
either "Sieve Email Filtering: ..." or "Sieve Extension: ..." and I think it
would be helpful to be consistent.  Looking for a precedent from the
existing RFCs we have:

RFC3431 Sieve Extension: Relational Tests. W. Segmuller. December 2002.
     (Format: TXT=12849 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

RFC3598 Sieve Email Filtering -- Subaddress Extension. K. Murchison.
     September 2003. (Format: TXT=11151 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

RFC3685 SIEVE Email Filtering: Spamtest and VirusTest Extensions. C.
     Daboo. February 2004. (Format: TXT=17436 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED
     STANDARD)

RFC3894 Sieve Extension: Copying Without Side Effects. J. Degener.
     October 2004. (Format: TXT=9018 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/sieve-charter.html lists the other
I-Drafts out there for Sieve and I think "Sieve Email Filtering: ..." has
the majority vote just now.  That means we should change these if possible:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sieve-variables
Sieve Extension: Variables

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sieve-notify-08
Sieve Extension: Notifications

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sieve-3431bis-04
Sieve Extension: Relational Tests

Nigel

---

From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 03:05:13 +0200

On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 17:03 +0100, Nigel Swinson wrote:
> Did we decide on a naming convention for Sieve extensions?

I don't think so.  when I brought it up a couple of years ago, there
wasn't much interest in such nitpicking :-)

> We seem to have
> would be helpful to be consistent.

I agree.

> Looking for a precedent from the existing RFCs we have:
> 
> RFC3431 Sieve Extension: Relational Tests.
> RFC3598 Sieve Email Filtering -- Subaddress Extension.
> RFC3685 SIEVE Email Filtering: Spamtest and VirusTest Extensions.
> RFC3894 Sieve Extension: Copying Without Side Effects.
> 
> the majority vote just now.

it's odd to count unpublished drafts, IMHO.  I obviously prefer the
shorter "Sieve extension".  But if you're looking at them, note the
"Sieve notification" drafts -- they're not called "Sieve Email
Filtering: mailto notification mechanism" etc.

> That means we should change these if possible:
> 

I would rather not put my name on a document which uses the misspelling
"email", which is actually an old name for "enamel".  it should say
"e-mail" or just "mail".

-- 
Kjetil T.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:13:20 +0100

>Did we decide on a naming convention for Sieve extensions?
I remember we've discussed this before, but I don't remember the outcome 
and I am offline at the moment.

>Sieve Extension: Variables
Your proposal should work here.

>Sieve Extension: Notifications
I can change the title, but I think that:
 SIEVE Email Filtering Extension: Notifications

is slightly more informative than:

 SIEVE Email Filtering: Enotify Extension

(who would know that enotify is about notifications?)

Opinions?

>Sieve Extension: Relational Tests
The same problem as above here: I think "Relational Tests" is more 
informative that "Relational Extension"

---

From: "Nigel Swinson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:37:43 +0100

> Filtering: mailto notification mechanism" etc.

I also prefer the "Sieve Extension:" prefix.  I agree the notification
drafts should also have a predictable prefix, but they seem to have that
already, so didn't bring it up.  Ideally I'd like them to also have the same
prefix as the "Sieve Extension:"s, perhaps with at additional prefix after
that.  However we obviously want to take care that any such prefix does not
become too long.

> "email", which is actually an old name for "enamel".  it should say

While that might be true and I don't care much either way, it sounds like a
fruitless battle.  Surely "email" is so embedded in the common consciousness
by now that it communicates the correct concept, and is that not the aim of
words?

Nigel

---

From: "Nigel Swinson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:46:32 +0100

> (who would know that enotify is about notifications?)

I'd be happy with:

Sieve Email Filtering: Notifications

> informative that "Relational Extension"

I'd be happy with:

Sieve Email Filtering: Relational Tests

I don't care if it's SIEVE or Sieve, either, but think it better to be
consistent, and it isn't consistent out there at the moment.

Nigel

---

From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:27:48 +0200

> (who would know that enotify is about notifications?)

I don't think it is necessary to use the capability string in the title,
cf. RFC 3894 above, but you need to write it differently so as not to
imply it, e.g. "Sieve Email Filtering: Extension for Notifications"

as previously stated, I prefer the title stays as "Sieve Extension:
Notifications".

-- 
kind regards,
Kjetil T. Homme
sysadmin R&D, FAST