I apologize for an off-topic posting.
Please send replies to ietf-pop3ext(_at_)imc(_dot_)org, not to the drums or
On May 18, a Last Call was issued on for document draft-gellens-pop3ext-05.txt ,
for Proposed Standard status. Nobody has commented on the document. I am
reluctant to recommend that IESG approve this document without more evidence
So I'm asking for more review...
Should the document be adopted as is? Does it need more wordsmithing?
Are all of these capabilities needed?
Are all of the capabilities defined with sufficient precision?
Should the document be standards track or should it be Informational or
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
could be defined in a separate experimental or informational RFC.