Re: a different tack

Michael D'Errico <> Tue, 14 June 1994 20:33 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08914; 14 Jun 94 16:33 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08910; 14 Jun 94 16:33 EDT
Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15229; 14 Jun 94 16:33 EDT
Received: (from postman@localhost) by (8.6.7/8.6.6) id QAA13971; Tue, 14 Jun 1994 16:28:11 -0400
Received: via switchmail for; Tue, 14 Jun 1994 16:28:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from via qmail ID </afs/>; Tue, 14 Jun 1994 16:26:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.7/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA27954 for <>; Tue, 14 Jun 1994 16:26:12 -0400
Received: from rome ( []) by with ESMTP id AAA19691 for <>; Tue, 14 Jun 1994 13:25:25 -0700
Subject: Re: a different tack
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 13:25:24 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Michael D'Errico <>
Message-ID: <>

William Allen Simpson <> wrote:

> In my experience, upgrading the Standardization status of a protocol
> means we _should_ add implementation detail, but _not_ add new features.
> New features should go in a separate extensions draft, or the whole POP3
> should go back to Proposed Standard, and we have to go through forming a
> working group.

Maybe this is the best thing to do then?  It is apparent from the discussions
here that there are a lot of incompatible features of various server and
client implementations.  These can be cleared up by adding the UIDL command,
but not without it.  As I'm new to the standards process, I don't know how
long it would take to go from Proposed Standard to a full standard, but also
don't see what the rush is especially since POP3 is broken right now....

> BTW, I like UIDL.  I would prefer it to go in a separate extensions
> document, which everybody just implements, and it advances on its own.

But UIDL fixes so many of the subtleties, it should be in the standard.
How can you guarantee that everybody will implement it if it isn't?

Michael D'Errico