MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no  Mon Jan 18 01:40:48 2010
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:43 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] draft-daboo-srv-email: POP3S/IMAPS?
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1001171529240.41896@legolas.yyc.orthanc.ca>
References: <9A584868-5961-4871-B32E-915394043727@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com>
	<30kZRcRQj+KHOwnouaxaCw.md5@lochnagar.gulbrandsen.priv.no>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1001171529240.41896@legolas.yyc.orthanc.ca>
Message-ID: <EeRzAO4Qk7y5XSPeAkVwuA.md5@lochnagar.gulbrandsen.priv.no>

Lyndon Nerenberg writes:
>> Feel free to suggest wording for an informational section 
>> discouraging imaps/pop3s/smtps.
>
> I would argue that since neither of imaps and pops are internet 
> standards, normative text about them is out of scope for a standards 
> track document, therefore all references to them should be deleted.

Standards-track document talk about such things quite often. As long as 
it's informational, anything goes.

I grepped for (informational) references to experimental RFCs in RFCs 
5000-present, and found several hundred.

993 is a nuisance, but it's real enough.

Arnt

