On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
Hi Philip, thanks for the review. But are we looking at the same version of
this doc? We dealt with this after doing a pseudo-WG-last-call on the SMTP
mailing list and the -07 draft now has:
Dang. I had pulled down the newer revision of
draft-siem
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
are we looking at the same version of this doc?
No, the last called is -07, it doesn't REQUIRE [DIGEST-MD5] anymore:
| Note that many existing client and server implementations implement
| CRAM-MD5 [CRAM-MD5] SASL mechanism. In order to ins
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> are we looking at the same version of this doc?
No, the last called is -07, it doesn't REQUIRE [DIGEST-MD5] anymore:
| Note that many existing client and server implementations implement
| CRAM-MD5 [CRAM-MD5] SASL mechanism. In order to insure interoperability
| with depl
Hi Philip, thanks for the review. But are we looking at the same
version of this doc? We dealt with this after doing a pseudo-WG-last-
call on the SMTP mailing list and the -07 draft now has:
To ensure interoperability, client and server implementations
of this extension
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'SMTP Service Extension for Authentication '
as a Proposed Standard
draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis does not appear to contain any text similar to
the last p
