Re: comments on draft-gellens-pop3ext-02.txt

Not sure where this was discussed but you're right it was :-)

Whatever anyone thinks about XTND XMIT, I think discussion about it should
be decoupled from the POP extension mechanism.  The current draft
certainly does not absolutey preclude it or anything like it even though
it discourages it. Given that the language is only a suggestion that it
will be hard to get such a thing through the IESG I would hope this isn't
a problem.

LL



On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Steve Atkins wrote:

> Chris newman wrote:
> >On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Tom Killalea wrote:
> >
> >> Given recent discussion on the GRIP WG list ([email protected]) arising
> >> from draft-ietf-grip-hansen-xtnd-00.txt (which despite the name is *not*
> >> a draft sanctioned by that group) does it make sense to explicitly 
> >> discourage/deprecate XTND XMIT and indicate why it's a bad idea ?
> >
> >The draft says enough about this in the "Future Extensions to POP3"
> >section.  It makes it quite clear that extensions which duplicate
> >capabilities supplied by IMAP or SMTP are strongly discouraged.  Since
> >"XTND XMIT" duplicates SMTP functionality (defectively to bat), it
> >is therefore strongly discouraged and there's no way it could ever be
> >standardized.
> 
> That's exactly why I'm lurking here...
> 
> It's quite clear (to me, anyway) that XTND XMIT doesn't duplicate
> SMTP functionality (SMTP doesn't usually have sender authentication).
> 
> Whilst fixing SMTP to require authentication would be ideal that's
> a lot less likely to happen than standardising a POP3 or IMAP send
> extension. (Not neccesarily using XTND XMIT type protocol - as you say,
> it's broken).
> 
> I get the impression that this has been 'discussed' at length somewhere
> before - if someone could point me at an archive, or give me the gist
> of the argument I'd appreciate it.
> 
> Cheers,
>   Steve
> --
> -- Steve Atkins -- [email protected]
> 
>