Subject: Re: WGLC on draft-freed-sieve-notary-01.txt

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:05:41 -0800 (PST)

> Lovely stuff. Three suggestions.

> 1. The previous extension named confused me. The new ones are much
> better. But the document title could be updated to match.

Good idea. Changed.

> 2. IMHO dsn-redirect should apply to the vacation and notify/mailto
> commands as well as to redirect.

Alexey pointed out that this really doesn't apply to vacation. As for notify,
perhaps that should just be done in the base notify-mailto specification since
it isn't done yet.

> 3. An ORCPT example in the paragraph about ORCPT, something like
> "rfc822;[email-masked]".

Good idea as well. Added.

				Ned

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:11:18 -0800 (PST)

> Typo - Section 6, second paragraph, last sentence:  "then" to "them"

> From

> ...to request then using the...

> To

> ...to request them using the...

Fixed, thanks.

				Ned

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:09:15 -0800 (PST)

> * Typo: Chapter 7, second capability name should be dsn-redirect. :)

Yep. Fixed.

> * Idea: Would it make sense to name these capabilities 'envelope-dsn'
> and 'redirect-dsn'? Because in a way they extend these existing
> capabilities, and also because in the future we could have names like
> 'envelope-auth' "align" with them.

I don't feel strongly about this either way, but I'm reluctant to change it
unless others agree that it is worth it. Comments?

				Ned

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:02:08 -0600

>unless others agree that it is worth it. Comments?
I slightly prefer Alexandros' suggestion. But if you already have this 
implemented, don't bother changing.