Re: Status Update

On Mon, 2004/11/29 (MST), <[email protected]> wrote:

> Our new charter also lists "Revised document on OPES rules language" as  
> a November deliverable. (Funny that charter approvals their time, but  
> deadliens are never adjusted accordingly...). Alex - does it make sense  
> to submit an updated document on "P" to IESG and use this as a starting  
> point?
>
> Tony suggested that we take another close look at 'sieve', now that  
> there's a WG looking at sieve extensions. Maybe there's an opportunity  
> to worj tjrough sieve extensions?

My understanding is that my "Sieve versus P comparison" resulted in a  
consensus that we cannot use Sieve "as is", but have to learn their  
lessons (including trying to be no more complex than Sieve).  
Unfortunately, the comparison missed a couple of important extensions such  
as Sieve variables. Those extensions may now get into Sieve Core (also a  
lesson for us -- variables are needed as a core primitive).

I am not sure what to do at this point: I can post P draft and start  
working on fixing known issues, with others help. It will take a few  
iterations before P Core can be submitted to IESG, IMO. Alternatively, we  
can re-open the discussion on whether we can extend Sieve enough so that  
it accomodates OPES needs for HTTP and SMTP adaptations, at least. I am  
happy to work on P, but I need an "official" go-ahead from the WG to avoid  
wasting time on a new language the group is not interested in.

How do we proceed?

Thanks,

Alex.