Subject: Chris Newman's comment on draft-ietf-sieve-notify

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:18:22 +0000

Chris has posted the following comment during the IESG review:

>An issue with nomenclature that I recommend fixing.  This document uses
>the term "importance" with a completely different meaning from the
>"importance" header in the Header Registry.  Indeed, in this document,
>the term "importance" has the same meaning as the "priority" header in
>the mail headers registry and the "urgency" header in the XMPP registry.
>I would prefer this used consistent terminology.  I recommend ":urgency"
>or ":priority" instead of ":importance".  I understand the change would
>be annoying this late in the process given the notify XMPP document has
>to be updated as well, which is why I'm not making this a discuss issue.
>But please consider this seriously.

Are people Ok with changing the tag name? Are there any implementations of the latest draft?

If there is no WG consensus to change the tag name, authors can update the tag description to use consistent terminology.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:07:02 -0700

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> "importance" header in the Header Registry.  

That seems potentially confusing.

>> Indeed, in this document,
>> or ":priority" instead of ":importance".  

BTW in XMPP we called it "urgency" because we already use the term
"priority" in the context of presence (but not in the context of messaging).

>> I understand the change would
> If there is no WG consensus to change the tag name, authors can update
> the tag description to use consistent terminology.

Preventing confusion always seems like a good idea.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Aaron Stone <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:16:56 -0800

> If there is no WG consensus to change the tag name, authors can update the tag description to use consistent terminology.

I am comfortable with a change to either name. Matching the keyword and
terminology of both mail and xmpp should be a priority, IMHO. (If that
means a vote for ':urgency' then so it is :)

Aaron

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:03:04 -0700

Aaron Stone wrote:
>>> An issue with nomenclature that I recommend fixing.  This
>>> document uses the term "importance" with a completely different
>>> meaning from the "importance" header in the Header Registry.
>>> Indeed, in this document, the term "importance" has the same
>>> meaning as the "priority" header in the mail headers registry and
>>> the "urgency" header in the XMPP registry. I would prefer this
>>> used consistent terminology.  I recommend ":urgency" or
>>> ":priority" instead of ":importance".  I understand the change
>>> would be annoying this late in the process given the notify XMPP
>>> document has to be updated as well, which is why I'm not making
>>> this a discuss issue. But please consider this seriously.
>> If there is no WG consensus to change the tag name, authors can
>> update the tag description to use consistent terminology.
>> 
> 
> I am comfortable with a change to either name. Matching the keyword
> and terminology of both mail and xmpp should be a priority, IMHO. (If
> that means a vote for ':urgency' then so it is :)

Just to be clear, a tag name of ":priority" would not necessarily cause
confusion in XMPP.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:17:58 +0300

> Just to be clear, a tag name of ":priority" would not necessarily cause
Speaking as a WG member (and not as a co-editor/chair): I dislike 
changing the document to use :priority, because :priority was used in an 
older version of the document and is already deployed.
So I would prefer to either change to :urgency or keep :importance, but 
adjust terminology in order to clear any confusion.

Any other opinions?

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:20:34 -0700

> adjust terminology in order to clear any confusion.

I don't have a preference.

Peter