Re: a different tack

[William Allen Simpson <[e-mail]>]

> From: Marshall Rose <[e-mail]>
>
> > 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?

[e-mail]