Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-sieve-convert-06.txt

> The latter part of this requirement is obviously explicitly met in Section
> 2.1. However, I miss an explicit statement about whether or not the new
> "convert" action cancels the implicit keep. Although it should be quite
> obvious and the examples provide various hints in the correct direction, I
> think an explicit sentence is in order.

A fair suggestion.  I will extend the last paragraph of section 2.1
when we go into AUTH48 (or Pete can put in an RFC Editor note now):

OLD
   Because the implicit keep (see Section 2.10.2 of [RFC5228]), if it is
   in effect, acts on the final state of the message, all conversions
   are performed before any implicit keep.

NEW
   Because the implicit keep (see Section 2.10.2 of [RFC5228]), if it is
   in effect, acts on the final state of the message, all conversions
   are performed before any implicit keep.  The "convert" actions
   themselves have no effect on the implicit keep status.

Barry
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve