Re: draft-ietf-hansen-pop3-xtndext-00.txt

[hansen@pegasus4.bl-els.att.com]

< Please don't send those extensions to the RFC editor.  They are very
< poorly designed and will cause a number of serious problems in the field. 

Chris, please reread the abstract for the draft:

    This Internet Draft describes some experimental extensions to the Post
    Office Protocol [POP3].  These extensions are described here for
    historical purposes.  The status of this Internet Draft will be
    Experimental.  New implementations of POP3 clients and servers are not
    expected to implement these extensions.

In other words, I agree that the extensions are poorly designed. However, I
disagree about their not needing to be documented.

< I believe this is out of scope for the GRIP WG.

Well, consider this paragraph from draft-ietf-grip-isp-04.txt. (This comes
after a discussion of the SMTP SUBMIT port and the use of SMTP AUTH.)

    The (undocumented) XTND XMIT POP3 extension which allows clients to send
    mail through the POP3 session rather than using SMTP may also be
    considered.  It also provides a way to support mobile users at sites
    where open relaying is disabled, and has the benefit of an authenticated
    connection and a better audit trail.

Given that this topic came up within the grip-wg's discussions and it's
being mentioned in the grip's major document, it seems to be within scope
for discussion in grip-wg. The pop3 extensions themselves are outside of the
scope of grip-wg, hence the lack of "grip" in the document filename.

< I consider the SMTP AUTH extension to be a superior solution to the
< problem in all ways -- it requires fewer code changes, is more flexible
< and secure, and results in an architecture with better functional
< separation. See draft-myers-smtp-auth-09.txt.  That solution also works
< for IMAP as well as POP with far less complexity.

Nobody is disagreeing with SMTP AUTH being a better solution. Some of us
just felt that anything which is being mentioned in a BCP should be
documented somewhere, rather than being left described as "(undocumented)".

< [I don't read the grip-wg mailing list, and am not including the DRUMS
< list since this is out-of-scope]

The reason the message was sent to drums was because several people knew
that various potentially interested parties, such as yourself, DO subscribe
to drums, and it seemed to be the easiest way to get 

----

Would adding verbiage to the abstract help, such as a discussion of better
options?

					Tony