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

Randall Gellens wrote:

> At 3:27 PM -0700 7/10/98, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>
> >Section 6.3
> >
> >    Discussion:
> >        [skipped].
> >       The SASL capability indicates that the AUTH command is available and
> >        that it supports an optional base64 encoded second argument for
> >        an initial client response as described in the SASL
> >        specification.
> >
> >Why outline the existence of the second base64-encoded parameters?
>
> Sorry, Alexey, I neglected to answer this in my previous reply.
>
> RFC 1734 doesn't specify an optional second parameter.  RFC 2222 does
> mention it, but does not say it should be base64 encoded; it talks
> about binary tokens.  Because POP is not a binary protocol, it makes
> sense to specify that the parameter (initial response) be base64
> encoded.

I understand and agree. Nevertheless I think that updated (if any) version of
RFC 1734 should mention this.

Cheers,
Alexey Melnikov
------------------------------------------
SMTP/POP3/IMAP4/ACAP servers creation team
"ACAP Explorer" client
Imap Development Kit (my own product)

Epsylon Technologies, Russia
 http://www.demo.ru
------------------------------------------