Subject: Sieve Working Group Charter [just in case]

From: Matthew Wall <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 19:42:53 -0500

Attached below, for argument's sake, is a version of a hypothetical
proposed charter for a working group that might exist in a parallel
universe where we don't get enough done at the BOF to move Sieve to
proposed standard and actually need future IETF meeting agenda time.

Need I repeat -- this is presented just as a CONTINGENCY, and I am not at
this time seriously proposing submitting this for Area Director review/IESG
approval.

However, Sieve really is sufficiently developed (imho) that we need to move
things along, and this BOF next week will be our second -- and last allowed
under current procedures. 

Thus, if we want to use up meeting time and/or have the imprimatur of a
standard-in-progress, one of the following must happen:

  ==> we wrap up the current spec and submit it to the IESG in a timely
manner, as per our current plan. I suggest at this point that a 'timely
manner' is May at the latest.

  ==> we have sufficient push-back from the participants of the BOF and/or
the Area Directors that we adopt a somewhat delayed schedule but within the
current scope, but without the assumption of needing to meet again, which
would suggest a fall completion date after appropriate work on the list.

  ==> if there's a lot more work to be done than anybody anticipates, or
the scope gets broadened by one of the above, then we'll have to get formal
working group status -- hence the charter below, just in case.

(A default alternative, of course, is to lay down the work. Ptooey on that
idea, I say.)

I whipped this up in the event we end up deciding at the BOF and/or on the
list that we need to go to WG status, just so we have something in hand to
discuss. I took a minimalist approach to the charter in terms of scope. 

Again: just for reference at this point, I see no point in discussing this
until the BOF (if even then).

- Matt

====

SIEVE WORKING GROUP * CHARTER PROPOSAL

NAME: RFC822 Message Filtering Language WG 
Short name: Sieve

CHAIR: TBD. Proposed: 

Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Matt Wall <[email-masked]>

Applications Area Director(s): 

Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Patrik Faltstrom <[email-masked]>

Applications Area Advisor: 

TBD.

Mailing Lists: 

General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: [email-masked]
Archive: http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/

Description of Working Group: 

The goal of this working group is to develop a standard language for the
filtering of RFC822[bis] messages.

This language must be minimally sufficient to provide basic filtering
capabilities for messages at time of final delivery. The language must be
appropriate for processing by an engine associated with or in conjunction
with an RFC821[bis] MTA and should be appropriate for processing by an
RFC822[bis] MUA. An extension mechanism must be included as part of the
base specification. 
Additionally, the working group will produce documents specifying the
following extensions to the basic language: (1) vacation-style
auto-processing of messages (2) [nothing else just yet...].

The working group will specifically NOT establish any independent protocol
for the transport of the scripts of such language. However, the working
group will endeavour to make scripts in the proposed language amenable to
transport via likely application-layer transport protocols. The working
group should issue an informational document, or incorporate within the
base specification, any relevant parameters or security concerns with
respect to transport of scripts. The working group will register an
appropriate MIME type for MIME transport of MTA filtering data, however.

The documents produced by this working group will be submitted to the IESG
as proposed standards.

Goals and Milestones:

June 1999        Eighth revised version of Sieve Specification
August 1999      Third revised version of Vacation Spec
November 1999    Meet at Washington, DC
February 2000    Submit final versions of Internet Drafts to IESG for 
                 consideration as Internet Standards