[ietf-nntp] Need to start (and finish!) the SASL draft
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
jeff at litech.org
Thu Apr 22 18:11:43 PDT 2004
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Russ Allbery said:
>
> >> Jeff, as I recall, you had a draft basically ready for publication as
> >> an I-D, but we hadn't actually published it. Could you get that
> >> submitted as an I-D to serve as a starting point, with whatever changes
> >> it had accumulated from the initial draft?
It's been so long that I'm not even entirely sure. Let's see... ah,
right, it's still in essence where it was when we decided to fork STARTTLS
and SASL into different drafts. I think it's actually pretty well, modulo
some cleanup/organization and a need for new examples. Hang on...
> I'm worried a little about how incredibly long our draft is already. But
> I don't know if splitting at authentication and TLS is actually a useful
> split for implementors; probably not.
I tend to be in favor of splitting when reasonably possible, when some
parts are likely to be stable but others may turn over more rapidly. I'm
thinking in particular of being stuck in the situation where we publish an
updated version of STARTTLS or SASL, and have to obsolete only a portion
of an existing document. It seems cleaner to me to be able to have
separate tracks for things that are likely to need revision.
--
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
jeff at litech.org
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list