IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] [Imap-protocol] draft-daboo-srv-email: POP3S/IMAPS?

Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Mon, 18 January 2010 09:40 UTC

Return-Path: <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9133A688E for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:40:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.376
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0owdFpQ6RGyy for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:40:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D633A6846 for <yam@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:40:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (kalyani.aox.org [79.140.39.164]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1A0FA04E9; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:40:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no (HELO lochnagar.gulbrandsen.priv.no) by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.3) with esmtp id 1263807451-45839-45838/5/27 (2 recipients); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:37:31 +0100
Message-Id: <EeRzAO4Qk7y5XSPeAkVwuA.md5@lochnagar.gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:40:48 +0100
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu, yam@ietf.org
References: <9A584868-5961-4871-B32E-915394043727@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com> <30kZRcRQj+KHOwnouaxaCw.md5@lochnagar.gulbrandsen.priv.no> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1001171529240.41896@legolas.yyc.orthanc.ca>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1001171529240.41896@legolas.yyc.orthanc.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [yam] [Imap-protocol] draft-daboo-srv-email: POP3S/IMAPS?
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:40:50 -0000

Lyndon Nerenberg writes:
>> Feel free to suggest wording for an informational section 
>> discouraging imaps/pop3s/smtps.
>
> I would argue that since neither of imaps and pops are internet 
> standards, normative text about them is out of scope for a standards 
> track document, therefore all references to them should be deleted.

Standards-track document talk about such things quite often. As long as 
it's informational, anything goes.

I grepped for (informational) references to experimental RFCs in RFCs 
5000-present, and found several hundred.

993 is a nuisance, but it's real enough.

Arnt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email