Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:57:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] If that is the case, would there be any objection to folding the MULTIAPPEND draft into the base specification? Unlike other extensions, MULTIAPPEND is not a new command; it is an obvious compatible enhancement to the APPEND command which should have been made to begin with. We would still have the MULTIAPPEND extension to indicate that the server accepts the MULTIAPPEND syntax.
I don't see the point to this except to work around what you describe as a process problem. There are other IMAP extensions which are both more widespread and more generally useful (LITERAL+ being the most obvious; NAMESPACE & UIDPLUS are some of the others) but also aren't in the base spec. [...] The new base specification uses RFC 2595 as normative for STARTTLS and AUTH=PLAIN, but modifies the STARTTLS specification. Should the base specification incorporate the STARTTLS specification (thus obsoleting RFC 2595 in that regard), and use RFC 2595 as normative only for AUTH=PLAIN? I don't think the modification (changing the mandatory-to-implement cipher suite) is all that large but the text to incorporate into the main spec isn't very large. What worries me most is having to copy all of section 2 of RFC 2595 into the base spec, creating the possibility that 2595 might be revised (for POP3) but not the IMAP text. So I guess I'm a reluctant yes, move STARTTLS into the base spec. Larry
