Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > Multiple interoperable implementations is not the [only] > criteria for advancement; it is necessary but not > sufficient 2026 says "mature, useful, well-understood, stable." A downref to SASLprep for a 2195bis DS would be odd, in that case better publish 2195bis as PS. > The working group decided, due to a variety of > considerations, not to pursue publication of the > new document on the standards track, and instead > to ask that it be published as Informational. That's the case "informational obsoletes PS". How's that supposed to work wrt BCP 46, ACAP, and ODMR ? > an argument that it should be assigned a status other > than that requested by the working group would be an > appropriate subject for a Last Call comment. Yes. That solves also Sam's problem, he can change his vote when that will happen (and if it gets traction). > I think this is perhaps the crux of the matter. I do > not believe that every old specification should be > advanced along the standards track simply because it > has been around a while and has multiple implementations. +1 for the second statement. The crux of the matter from my POV is elsewhere, CRAM-MD5 is the best existing ESMTPA mechanism in "real" MSAs I'm aware of. For a definition of "best" by "sending passwords in the clear isn't state of the art". > Advancing a specification to Draft Standard sends the > signal that the IETF thinks the specification is a good > idea and that people should deploy it. IMHO that's why CRAM-MD5 as DS would be good, maybe some implementors would care to read the second statement in its security considerations. You could add some MUSTard about this in a 2195bis draft. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf