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

> 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?

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