Re: RFC-1204: Message Posting Protocol (MPP)

[Einar Stefferud <[e-mail]>]

I expect that Shannon and David (the authors) will get themselves on
this mailing list ASAP, and I will assure that they get copies of
everything for which they are not visibly shown in the TO/CC.

Your message seemed to be directed to me, so I will reply, though
comments from the authors are certainly appropriate.

I agree that the text in RFC1204 is inadequate.  I did not review it
prior to its approval as an RFC.  I had nothing to do with the RFC
other than to consult on the broad issues of how such a service should
be implemented, in conversations with a student (David Lee).

I think MPP has a proper framework, in that it is a POSTING companion
to the POP3 POSTOFFICE service, and fits exactly into the long
exisitng POP3 framework.  I don't think we should stop filling the
gaps in that framework.

Has anyone issued a decree that such work stop?  In short, must all
work stop at all levels other than the current high level work on
security, even though gaps in old frameworks may still exist?

I also described how this is useful in the POP3 framework on a LAN,
where an MUA could use MPP for posting, without needing an full
implementation of SMTP (and I can now add FTP to the list of things we
did not want to include).  I am not at all sure how FTP might be used
for the POSTING SERVICE in anything other than a very awkward way to
achieve the "remote posting service" that is sought.

So, I see two issues to be resolved:

1.  Should this work be stopped because it is out of bounds in terms
of a new security framework concern, or is a little gap filling OK?

2.  If it is OK to work on MPP, what should be done to send the
authors off to fix it.  Of course, some useful comments have already
been collected, in this exchange.

Best...\Stef