MBOX-Line: From mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU  Mon Apr  9 10:18:40 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:39 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] thread computation algorithms and Exchange 
In-Reply-To: <07Apr9.101403pdt."57996"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com>
References: <07Apr9.093358pdt."57996"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com>
	<alpine.OSX.0.98.0704090939120.11423@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<07Apr9.101403pdt."57996"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.0.98.0704091015270.11423@pangtzu.panda.com>

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> I strongly urge you to focus on standards, and disregard
>> non-standards.
> Ah, but identifying what's really a standard is the hard part. :-)

Actually, it is not difficult at all within the Internet context.

The IETF has a set of documents, called RFCs for historical reasons, which 
are graded according to their standards level: informational, 
experimental, proposed standard, draft standard, full standard.  Documents 
in one of the last three categories (with "standard" in their name) are 
also called standards-track documents.

Anything that is not in a standards-track document is not a standard.

There are also Internet Drafts, some of which are destined to become 
standards-track documents.  However, Internet Drafts can (and do!) change 
incompatibly before they are published as RFCs, so even if the effort 
itself is aimed at standards-track an Internet Draft can not be used or 
cited as anything other than a work in progress.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

