Subject: [apps-discuss] Processing draft-bosch-sieve-duplicate via APPSAWG

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:24:30 -0700

We have received a request to process the above draft through APPSAWG,
since there is no longer a sieve WG.  It is a relatively short document and
appears to fall within our charter.

We haven't processed a sieve extension here yet; rather, they've gone
through small, tight WGs so far.  Before issuing a formal call for
adoption, I'd like to gauge whether we have enough sieve-aware people
currently following APPSAWG to be able to contribute reviews and
constructive commentary.  A virtual show of hands, please?

Alternatively, the ADs may wish to spin up another short-lived WG to handle
this.  Barry or Pete, care to comment?

-MSK, co-chairin'

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 16:28:32 -0600

On 5/7/13 4:24 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> since there is no longer a sieve WG.  It is a relatively short document
> and appears to fall within our charter.
> 

Seems reasonable as an APPSAWG item. I'm not a SIEVE expert, but I've
worked on it a bit (RFC 5437) and I would be willing to review this
document.

Peter

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:43:34 -0700

> constructive commentary.  A virtual show of hands, please?
I should add that the person submitting the request was not the author and
has volunteered to shepherd the document, so add one to whatever count
comes out of this thread.  :-)

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 10:29:12 +0100

On 7 May 2013, at 23:43, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> We have received a request to process the above draft through APPSAWG, since there is no longer a sieve WG.  It is a relatively short document and appears to fall within our charter.
> 
> We haven't processed a sieve extension here yet; rather, they've gone through small, tight WGs so far.  Before issuing a formal call for adoption, I'd like to gauge whether we have enough sieve-aware people currently following APPSAWG to be able to contribute reviews and constructive commentary.  A virtual show of hands, please?
> 
> 
> I should add that the person submitting the request was not the author and has volunteered to shepherd the document, so add one to whatever count comes out of this thread.  :-) 

I am interested (and I commented on earlier versions of this draft).

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 10:14:30 -0400

Hi Murray,

> constructive commentary.  A virtual show of hands, please?

Somewhat late, but I support AppsDiscuss processing this document. It has 
already had some significant review on the ietf-sieve mailing list and is 
probably ready to go straight to last call. Most of the key sieve 
implementors are subscribed to ietf-sieve so any apps-discuss 
"announcements" should be cc'd there as well. Or would it make sense to use 
ietf-sieve as the "primary" mailing list and cc announcements to 
apps-discuss?

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 07:31:37 -0700

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> --On May 7, 2013 at 3:24:30 PM -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy" <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
I'd prefer the discussion happen here, but I don't feel strongly on the
matter.

However, I'd be happier if there were a few other reviewers/commenters in
here that are willing to support the document through the process.  Now
Cc:ing [email-masked] (when someone over there approves my post), can I get
a couple more volunteers?

-MSK, APPSAWG co-chair

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 12:19:35 -0400

> a couple more volunteers?

We always have a tricky situation when something belongs elsewhere as
well as on apps-discuss -- this has happened a few times as we've
branched off discussions (webfinger, json, dmarc), and will also
happen in cases such as imap and sieve stuff, as we try to bring it
into appsawg.  I think the best approach is to try to cross-post when
it's stuff that's relatively low volume (such as this), and to keep
apps-discuss periodically updated when it's higher volume (such as
webfinger).

We've now had reviews of this document

   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bosch-sieve-duplicate/

...by Ned Freed, Aaron Stone, and Cyrus Daboo.  Alexey, too, as
shepherd.  And PSA has expressed approval for handling it in appsawg.
I've seen no objections, so I think that works for bringing it into
appsawg.  For review, if we could get a couple of other appsawg folks,
even some who are not otherwise involved with sieve, to review it as a
sanity check, we should be OK.  Claudio can help corral a couple of
reviewers through appsdir.

We might also specifically ask Arnt Gulbrandsen and Tim Showalter for
reviews, as formerly active Sieve folks.

Barry

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 18:23:50 +0200 (CEST)

> reviewers through appsdir.

yes, we can do that. Just let me know, and it will be included in the next 
round.

> Barry
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          [email-masked]
                         Senior Technical Officer
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

            PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 09:37:56 -0700

> reviews, as formerly active Sieve folks.

I was hoping for a little more voluntary participation, but if we think we
can grab enough people to make the review process smooth then I'm fine with
proceeding.  I'll contact the authors to submit, and see if Alexey is still
keen to shepherd.

-MSK