Re: a different tack

Marshall Rose <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Wed, 15 June 1994 01:39 UTC

Reply-To: ietf-pop3@andrew.cmu.edu
To: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@cmu.edu>
Cc: POP3 IETF Mailing List <ietf-pop3+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: a different tack
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Jun 1994 17:40:59 EDT." <khzWDfS00WBwE0ky4t@andrew.cmu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Id: <24428.771644056.1@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 18:34:17 -0700
Message-Id: <24430.771644057@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Marshall Rose <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>

> You seem to be assuming that our purpose is to upgrade the
> standardization status of the protocol.  It's not--our purpose is to
> reach some sort of agreement about the loose ends that have been
> identified as being tied and to make a revised document that reflects
> the agreed-on changes.
> 
> I think there are people who would legitimately object to POP3 going
> to "Standard" were it not to address the problems that UIDL solves.

I agree.  I think you should fix the draft, remove LAST, etc., add UIDL
(if that's what people want), and then toss it back to the IESG.  It
will certainly not go to full standard in any event.

/mtr

Re: a different tack Steve Dorner
a different tack William Allen Simpson
Re: a different tack Michael D'Errico
Re: a different tack John Gardiner Myers
Re: a different tack Marshall Rose
Re: a different tack William Allen Simpson
Re: a different tack John Gardiner Myers