Subject: lunch bof notes

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:59:25 -0400

Here are some brief notes on the lunch BOF held last week at the IETF 
meeting:

1) WG Status:

    - the ADs were amenable to setting up a WG for sieve, subject to an 
acceptable charter
    - Ned is putting together a charter (he will post details)
    - Ned will also write a 'justification' document to go along with the 
charter to the IESG
      to explain why we feel the need for a WG now, after having worked 
pretty well without one
      up to now

2) Key charter points:

    - Take base spec to draft. Changes to the base spec will be out of 
scope except for fixing
      errata, or removal of items not implemented.
    - Revise existing extensions if needed (relational, subaddress, 
spamtest).
    - WG will formally work on the following drafts: vacation, regex, 
editheader, body,
      variables, imapflags, notify, mimeheaders/loop
    - other drafts will remain individual submissions: include, 
managesieve, refuse

3) Other comments:

    - Jutta: need percent test in spamtest. General agreement to update 
spamtest with
      :percent argument
    - variables: are variables strings or lists? Issue to list.
    - vacation: interaction with variables is a problem. Want option to set 
>From address.
      'Re' vs 'auto' - discuss further on list but lunch consensus was for 
'Re'.
    - body: use '=' as hex separator so q-p decoder/encoder can be reused? 
No variables.
      Doc missing IANA section.
    - regex: have to wait for Chris N's comparator draft. i18n remains the 
only issue.
      Ask Martin Duerst (w3c) for his opinion. What about capture of regex 
into variables?
    - imapflags: issue with interaction with variables. More list 
discussion required.
    - editheader: insert at top or bottom by default? Lunch consensus was 
default to top but
      allow option to go at bottom as currently specified. Interaction with 
itself: clarify.
      No IANA section.
     - include: not much interest in implementing. Should be 'experimental'?
    - refuse: only useful in limited cases (e.g. single recipient). Why not 
modify reject?
    - mime/loop: agreement that this is very useful. Include attachment 
removal capability.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo