Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-imapext-sort (INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL

On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 11:58 -0800, Dan Karp wrote:
> > The proposed changes in the comments below create significiant 
> > incompatibilities with multiple interoperable client and server 
> > implementations that have been in production use and widely
> > distributed worldwide for several years.
> >
> > The result of making any of these changes would be instability and 
> > inconsistency between implementations, creating an environment in
> > which nobody can use these extensions because there is no reliable
> > behavior.
> If there's a problem with the draft -- for instance, that the FROM sort
> is useless from a client standpoint or that the CC sort will never be
> used by a real-world client -- then it should be fixed before reaching
> RFC status.  If the resulting RFC is not protocol- or algorithm-
> equivalent to revision 19 of the SORT draft, then this would not be the
> first time that an extension's CAPABILITY string would have to change at
> the time of publication.
I don't see a point in breaking a lot of client and server
implementations that implement the draft in its current form. The draft
has stayed almost the same for at least 5 years (I implemented it then
the first time).

> I don't think that "But that doesn't match the behavior of a previous
> version of the draft" is a useful argument at Last Call time.
I think these changes should have been discussed long before reaching
last call. The draft is over 10 years old already!

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf