> Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > [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. > I'm not convinced these protocols qualify for DS status. DS status > requires a lot, specifically that ALL features in the document have been > demonstrated interoperable, and that their normative references are DS. > I implemented IMAP and wrote > <http://josefsson.org/nnimap/buggy-imap-servers.html>, I'm pretty sure > others implementing other protocols have had similar experiences and > frustration. I don't see how this is in any way relevant. Implementation bugs are a fact of life for any protocol you care to name, and IMAP is certainly no exception. But unless those bugs indicate that the specification is ambiguous in some way, or perhaps that some aspect of the protocol is too difficult for implementors to get right, I fail to see why any of this would preclude a move to draft. It is perhaps also worth point ouf that this information is seriously out of date. Indeed, not only are several of these implementations no longer available, at least one of them is so old it was no longer maintained at the time the testing seems to be been done. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf