Subject: RE: Include vacation in sieve draft?

From: Gregory Sereda <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:47:40 -0500

At 09:40 AM 2/18/99 UT, Edward Hibbert wrote:
>What do other implementors think?

Tim made a good point that vacation serves as an example of
how to write a sieve extension.

However, adding vacation to the sieve draft has some advantages:

	- easier to find/understand since it is in one place.
	- easier to maintain for same reason, eg last draft example
         was using the older "forward" rather than "redirect".
	- provides needed functionality since "reply" was removed
         from the sieve standard.

If Edward's customers need vacation functionality, I am not sure
they will feel better knowing they can't have it because it is
an "extension" to sieve rather than a "optional" feature of sieve,
unless they are unaware the "vacation" extension exists.

In the end, I'll defer to Tim's judgement, since most of the 
burden rests on him to shepherd another draft through the process.
>From a technical perspective, there is no difference between an
"optional" feature in sieve and an "extension" of sieve.

Greg Sereda

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:31:50 -0500

> how to write a sieve extension.

Another option is to try to get them published as a pair and have
cross-references between the two, so that it is obvious that they are
together.

Publishing RFCs together is done fairly often by the RFC editor.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]