Re: [Off Topic] Need review for POP3 extension mechanism

>Should the document be adopted as is?  Does it need more wordsmithing?
>Are all of these capabilities needed?

I have already implemented CAPA to advertise support for TOP, USER,
PIPELINING, EXPIRE, and UIDL in the server I work on. SASL and LOGIN-DELAY
I can see the use of, but IMPLEMENTATION is not something I personally
would bother implementing.

>Are all of the capabilities defined with sufficient precision?

I found the definitions more than sufficient.

>Should the document be standards track or should it be Informational or
>Experimental?

I would like to see it be standards track. I think this is no longer
experimental, and would benefit from later review in the standards track
process, rather than being a one off informational.

>Should the extension mechanism be separated from (and perhaps a different
>status from) the extensions themselves?
>
>If the document is approved for Proposed, should all of the proposed
>extensions
>be included?  Or should some of the extensions be moved to a separate
>Informational or Experimental?   Which ones?
>
>In the absence of more community input, my recommendation would be to direct
>the authors to remove all of the capabilities from this document, except
>those
>which are already defined in standards-track documents.  Additional
>capabilities
>could be defined in a separate experimental or informational RFC.

The extensions that are not already defined in standards-track documents
(LOGIN-DELAY and PIPELINING with POP3) and the extended POP3 response codes
deal with current practices or issues, so I think they should stay.

Glenn.