re: Converging and my 2 cents worth

Ian Duncan <id@cc.mcgill.ca> Mon, 06 June 1994 21:27 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09272; 6 Jun 94 17:27 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09268; 6 Jun 94 17:27 EDT
Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24332; 6 Jun 94 17:27 EDT
Received: (from postman@localhost) by andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) id RAA13993; Mon, 6 Jun 1994 17:22:27 -0400
Received: via switchmail for ietf-pop3+@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 6 Jun 1994 17:22:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.khwtARK00UdbAGQE4D>; Mon, 6 Jun 1994 17:20:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sifon.CC.McGill.CA (sifon.CC.McGill.CA [132.206.27.10]) by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA04716 for <ietf-pop3@andrew.cmu.edu>; Mon, 6 Jun 1994 17:20:23 -0400
Received: from java.cc.mcgill.ca (java.CC.McGill.CA [132.206.35.22]) by sifon.CC.McGill.CA (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA11757; Mon, 6 Jun 1994 17:20:06 -0400
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 17:20:05 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Ian Duncan <id@cc.mcgill.ca>
Subject: re: Converging and my 2 cents worth
To: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@cmu.edu>, John C Klensin <klensin@infoods.unu.edu>
cc: ietf-pop3@andrew.cmu.edu
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9406061738.A14598-0100000@java.cc.mcgill.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 6 Jun 1994 12:57:17 -0400 (EDT), John Gardiner Myers wrote:

> Subject: Re: my 2 cents worth
> To: POP3 IETF Mailing List <ietf-pop3+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>
> Ian Duncan <id@CC.McGill.CA> writes:
> > I suggest that LAST *not* be removed from the required set of commands. 
> > Unless I've misunderstood John Klensin's note, dropping existing required 
> > commands isn't in the mandate in any case.
>
> I didn't read John Klensin's note that way.  Perhaps he could clarify.
>

I think before we spend any more time considering these sorts of changes 
clarification is essential. I don't believe I've stripped too much context
with the following quote: 

On Fri, 3 Jun 1994 15:59:50 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:

> Subject: Converging
> To: ietf-pop3@andrew.cmu.edu
> cc: Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl
>

[ ... ]

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

[ ... ]

> If you want to propose POP4, do so, but, as Marshall says "leave
> the protocol alone" as far as POP3 is concerned.

[ ... ]

And cutting previously required commands sure seems to be messing with the
protocol. The optional UIDL extension as proposed is probably just barely
in scope. 

I'll leave my responses to the rest of your comments until this fairly
fundamental question is answered. 

   ...   ian   <id@cc.mcgill.ca>
Ian Duncan  ---  McGill University Computing Centre  ---  +.514.398.3710