Tony, >> The POP->IMAP example is excellent, since it really >> demonstrates my point. IMAP is rather popular in some local TH> Could that be because from the end user perspective IMAP doesn't provide somehow I can't imagine that it would be useful to the main line of this thread to explore reasons for particular outcomes. I asked for examples. Some were offered. I believe none demonstrate what I asked for. All the rest is secondary to an already-congested thread (though entirely worthy of an extended bar bof.) >> Seriously folks, if discussion about changes is going to be >> productive, it needs to pay much more realistic attention to >> history and pragmatics of ISP operations and average-user preferences. ... TH> the few times there are requirements docs the IETF has a history of TH> discounting the needs of the end user or network operator, while it TH> places a premium on minimizing developer effort. One of the things that cropped up during the Problem WG "editing team" discussions was a view that Operators used to be an integral part of the IETF -- ie, "insiders" -- but have moved to be customers of our work and not much involved in the creation of it. As the IETF tries to find way to check with its customers about needs, benefits, etc., we need to make sure to count operators in that market research. TH> The IETF is in a difficult spot, because the customer of the IETF is the TH> vendor developer certainly folks who create software are our immediate customers, but the folks they produce software for are our ultimate customers. d/ -- Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>