Re: Processing draft-bosch-sieve-duplicate via APPSAWG

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

>
> --On May 7, 2013 at 3:24:30 PM -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy" <
> [email protected]> 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?
>>
>>
> 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?
>
>
>
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 protected] (when someone over there approves my post), can I get
a couple more volunteers?

-MSK, APPSAWG co-chair

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