[I'm changing the subject and cutting off the references list as we seem to have changed topic.] Simon, > DS designates a mature standard. If you read the requirements in RFC > 2026 for a mature standard it is clear that few of the modern IETF > protocols live up to that standard -- you need to demonstrate > interoperability between two completely independent implementations of > _all_ features in the protocol standard. I think we can all agree that the calendaring standard is mature. We are in the process of doing what I would consider to be a relatively minor update to it, and yet it is only PS. IMAPv4 is only PS and yet has MASSIVE deployment. LDAP is only PS and is MASSIVELY deployed. SIP is all over the place and it is only PS as well. And so it's pretty clear that nobody cares about DS or IS. What's more, why should they? What benefit does it bring to anyone to advance a standard to DS? AND it's a whole lot of work. So why are we even having an argument about what gets stuck into requirements for DS? Shouldn't we instead be eliminating it entirely? Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf