Subject: Re: IESG Review of draft-ietf-sieve-vacation

From: "Mark E. Mallett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:22:17 -0500

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:46:39PM -0500, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> 
> --On January 19, 2006 1:46:00 PM -0500 Scott Hollenbeck 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> >Thanks for the note, Ned.  It leads me to two more specific questions:
> >
> >Does the document need to describe the issues noted below in an
> >Internationalization Considerations section?  It might make sense.
> 
> My feeling is that what Ned described would be better off being put in the 
> base spec revision rather than vacation, since its is applicable to base 
> spec actions and other extensions too. i.e. we don't need to add this 
> directly to vacation itself.
> 
> What do others on the list think?

I would have agreed with you, but the text in the latest (-06) draft
looks good too.  The only typo I noted:

7.

   > The Sieve language itself allows a vacation response to selected
   > based on the content of the original message.

needs a "be" -- "to be selected" (not "to selected")

Yours,
mm

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 15:30:10 -0800 (PST)

> looks good too.

FWIW, I think the addition of an internationalization considerations section
to the base spec also makes sense. The one I wrote only deals with issues
specific to vacation (and maybe refuse and notify).

> needs a "be" -- "to be selected" (not "to selected")

Thanks for the catch - Kristin Hubner also pointed this out in private
email. Unfortunately I made the change to the XML but then forgot to rerun
xml2rfc one last time before submission. I'll fix it during auth48.

				Ned