Converging

John C Klensin <klensin@infoods.unu.edu> Fri, 03 June 1994 20:06 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10966; 3 Jun 94 16:06 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10962; 3 Jun 94 16:06 EDT
Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16869; 3 Jun 94 16:06 EDT
Received: (from postman@localhost) by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) id QAA21819; Fri, 3 Jun 1994 16:02:42 -0400
Received: via switchmail for ietf-pop3+@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 3 Jun 1994 16:02:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.AhvsjEu00Udb1bxU5m>; Fri, 3 Jun 1994 16:00:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from zork.tiac.net (zork.tiac.net [199.0.65.2]) by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA26606 for <ietf-pop3@andrew.cmu.edu>; Fri, 3 Jun 1994 16:00:13 -0400
Received: from jck (jck.tiac.net [199.0.65.41]) by zork.tiac.net (8.6.8/8.6.6.Beta9) with SMTP id PAA24010; Fri, 3 Jun 1994 15:59:50 -0400
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 1994 15:59:50 -0400
Message-Id: <199406031959.PAA24010@zork.tiac.net>
X-Sender: klensin@infoods.unu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: ietf-pop3@andrew.cmu.edu
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: John C Klensin <klensin@infoods.unu.edu>
Subject: Converging
Cc: Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl
X-Mailer: <PC Eudora Version 2.0.1>

I just sent a note asking to be added to the list, so this is partially in
response to a copy of Marshall's "goal" note and partially because a "what
is happening and why haven't I seen a new draft" flag is on my calendar for
this weekend anyway, rather than based on first-hand knowledge of details.

That said...

--> If the spec is wrong, fix the spec, but do it quickly

--> If there are real differences in opinion as to what things mean that
cannot be resolved (and quickly), then we need to find a mechanism to get a
consensus among existing implementations.

Any protocol *changes* are either going to require extensive IETF review and
approval (and I'll warn you, I use POP3 -- in several implementations of
both clients and servers-- for *my* mail and am not prepared to be
sympathetic to things that might mess up the installed base) or become part
of POP4.   If you want to propose POP4, do so, but, as Marshall says "leave
the protocol alone" as far as POP3 is concerned.

If the present process can't produce convergence in a hurry, I'll figure out
something else.  Theory and careful reading aside, the number of
interoperable implementations that exist today make a strong pragmatic case
that the spec is "good enough" under traditional IETF criteria.  So, much as
I strongly prefer that we have a spec that everyone can agree that they
understand, and understand the same way, "something else" could rationally
consist of voting the current draft out of IESG and encouraging you people
to come to some agreement before it comes up for an advance in maturity level.

I don't intend to have this as an open issue by the time the Toronto IETF
rolls around and, given IESG cycles, that leaves about two weeks or less to
get agreement on any planned changes.

      john