Re: a different tack

William Allen Simpson <bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu> Wed, 15 June 1994 16:29 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06329; 15 Jun 94 12:29 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06325; 15 Jun 94 12:29 EDT
Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11307; 15 Jun 94 12:29 EDT
Received: (from postman@localhost) by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) id LAA10627; Wed, 15 Jun 1994 11:47:42 -0400
Received: via switchmail for ietf-pop3+@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 15 Jun 1994 11:47:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.ghzm5KW00UddAdo04n>; Wed, 15 Jun 1994 11:42:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA10699 for <ietf-pop3@andrew.cmu.edu>; Wed, 15 Jun 1994 11:42:10 -0400
Received: from pm002-10.dialip.mich.net (pm002-10.dialip.mich.net [35.1.48.91]) by merit.edu (8.6.8.1/merit-1.0) with SMTP id LAA07266 for <ietf-pop3@andrew.cmu.edu>; Wed, 15 Jun 1994 11:42:08 -0400
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 13:51:39 GMT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: William Allen Simpson <bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu>
Message-ID: <2673.bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu>
To: ietf-pop3@andrew.cmu.edu
Reply-to: bsimpson@morningstar.com
Subject: Re: a different tack

> 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.
>

Now, we have consensus that it SHOULDN'T go forward to Full.

So, with this clear focus, let's get to it!  When will the draft be out?

Could we change UIDL -> LMID "List Message IDentifiers", which is more
what we are doing?  (UID is already a widely used concept elsewhere in
protocoldom.)

Or, can I suggest real heresy and say "let's call it POP4, get a new
port, and make the responses look more like NNTP"?

Or is POP4 -> IMAP4?

Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu