From owner-um@snowshore.com Wed Jan 29 16:50:39 2003 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id h0TLoGc20652 for um-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:50:16 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: flyingfox.snowshore.com: majordomo set sender to owner-um@mail.snowshore.com using -f Received: from episteme-software.com (champdsl-25-66.mcleodusa.net [216.43.25.66]) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h0TLoEx20646 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:50:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.43.25.67] (216.43.25.67) by episteme-software.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 3.2b4); Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:50:06 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01KRT49TEUKI002DEU@mauve.mrochek.com> References: <200301282312.SAA11118@ietf.org> <169878963.1043847608@p3.JCK.COM> <175052472.1043852782@p3.JCK.COM> <01KRT49TEUKI002DEU@mauve.mrochek.com> X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 6.0a1] Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:50:05 -0600 To: um@snowshore.com From: Pete Resnick Subject: [UM] Re: WG Review: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service environments (lemonade) Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-um@snowshore.com Precedence: bulk On 1/29/03 at 1:06 PM -0800, ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote: >I regard this as being up to the chair of the group. The charter >[...] was iterated on by both the chairs and the IESG. Ned is right. This is up to the chairs. I think it is a responsibility of the chairs. So, on that note: We spent a good deal of time on this list getting the "profile" language into the original version of the charter. Why did the chairs agree to having it removed without consulting with the list, and what reason was there for removing that language? Is "enhance" supposed to include "extend and/or profile"? Certainly the September 2003 milestone says "extensions". Also: - Why was IMAP called out specifically? Does the IESG really prefer this group to use IMAP over other choices? - What does "other servers" mean in the context of item 3? - Is discussion of message submission summarily out of scope now? pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 - This list is maintained by Snowshore Networks - http://www.snowshore.com All comments on this list are the comments of the message originators and Snowshore is not to be held responsible for any actions or comments found on this list. The archives for this list can be found at http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/um_archive/maillist.html From owner-um@snowshore.com Thu Jan 30 13:05:18 2003 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id h0UI5EQ13053 for um-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:05:14 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: flyingfox.snowshore.com: majordomo set sender to owner-um@mail.snowshore.com using -f Received: from zoe.office.snowshore.com (keeper.snowshore.com [216.57.133.4]) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h0UI5Ex13049 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:05:14 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [UM] RE: WG Review: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service environments (lemonade) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:05:11 -0500 Message-ID: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209D097BFB@zoe.office.snowshore.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: WG Review: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service environments (lemonade) Thread-Index: AcLH4rs0zhQ4GN41RRWWoVbnEEO+NQAo85iw From: "Eric Burger" To: "John C Klensin" , , "Pete Resnick" Cc: , , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by flyingfox.snowshore.com id h0UI5Ex13050 Sender: owner-um@snowshore.com Precedence: bulk Executive Summary: Accept John's second proposal. That is, take the charter as is, and insert a May 2003 deliverable of "lemonade Architecture, IESG and IETF Review, and Possible Rechartering". Now that I'm clearing out my mailbox... 1) When I saw the flood of messages, and the nature of the objections, I wondered if anyone actually read the charter. When I saw that a very old draft got posted, my faith in people was restored. 2) Pete - I'll take the fall for not posting the last revision for review. There were about 4 changes from the last, publicly reviewed charter to the one submitted to the IESG in the last go round. Each of those changes seemed minor (like what the acronym meant). However, taken collectively, they are a larger leap. Mea Culpa :-( 3) Initially, we were a bit leery about putting any changes to IMAP within the lemonade charter. If we get more participation from the broader IMAP community, then I would be more comfortable with the idea. That said, negotiable profiles do seem sensible. 4) Our original thoughts vis-a-vis IMAP was NOT to formally trim IMAP. It was to (gulp) add a method for alternate retrieval (CHANNEL) and to have more relevant status information (e.g., media size). 5) For better or worse, lemonade has provided a forum (and one could say an impetus) for the discussion of some taboo topics. For example, what started as a very limited scope need, server-to-server bulk notifications, has gotten people to actually WRITE the requirements, protocol issues, security issues, and privacy issues around notification in general. This helps get the discussion out of the darkness of "doing that is bad, trust me; if you were knowledgeable you would understand" into the light of "read this paper - it explains the issues." That alone is worth its weight in gold. 6) I have no problem narrowing the scope of the charter. I have no problem expanding the text of the charter to more accurately reflect the scope (e.g., refine the language of bullet 4 to explicitly say "IMAP Profile"). I am leery of adding IMAPv5 or IMAPlite to the charter. I really would like to the work group finish in a bounded time period. 7) As we are approaching our second year of BOF's and planning for the work of the WG, I think that we can make progress by taking John's second proposal. In short, take the charter as is, and insert a May 2003 deliverable of "lemonade Architecture, IESG and IETF Review, and Possible Rechartering". I would offer that starting with the architecture, instead of the requirements, would most likely result in a poor result. We should push out the subsequent milestones appropriately, and mark them as tentative. -- - Eric Burger Co-chair, lemonade BOF > -----Original Message----- > From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@jck.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 5:01 PM > To: ned.freed@mrochek.com; Pete Resnick > Cc: ietf@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WG Review: Enhancements to Internet email to support > diverse service environments (lemonade) > > > > > --On Wednesday, 29 January, 2003 13:06 -0800 > "ned.freed@mrochek.com" wrote: > > >> I agree. And unfortunately, I think this is due to a serious > >> problem about which I'm quite distressed: > > > >> The proposed charter contained in the announcement is *not* > >> the proposed charter worked out on the LEMONADE BOF mailing > >> list. Not even close. The one on the list went through > >> several revisions to include specific language in the work > >> items about profiling of existing protocols, and that > >> language has been removed in what was posted here. The one on > >> the list was tailored specifically to avoid having the > >> working group add to existing protocols (with IMAP as only > >> one example) unless absolutely necessary, but rather to > >> profile existing protocols if that solved the problem. The > >> present charter gives the incorrect impression that the > >> desire of the group is simply to add extensions, specifically > >> to IMAP. > > > > Well, as it happens the charter that was posted to > > ietf-announce wasn't the one the IESG approved either. It is > > one from quite a few versions back. > > > > I've attached the current charter below. > > Ned, this one is _lots_ better. I'll leave sorting out how the > wrong version got posted to the IESG and the Secretariat. But > my primary concern (and one of those on which Pete and I are > apparently in agreement) remains: when I read "enhance...IMAP", > I don't infer "narrow the protocol for use in this environment" > or "specify a way to use the existing protocol to accomodate > these needs". Instead, I infer "new feature", "new capability", > and "putting more stuff into the protocol". I think there is > considerable resistance in the community to making IMAP bigger > -- while the four messages that have shown up on the list are > not much of a sample, I observe that at least three of them have > included "make it smaller, not larger" positions. > > If the community believes all that has been said in Atlanta and > on the "problem-statement" list about raising architectural > issues early in the life of a WG rather than hitting the WG > during Last Call (and you can be assured that several of us will > scream loudly if this WG emits large extensions to IMAP without > really clear justification), then charter-time is the time to > fix this one. If the intent that all of us have is the same > --which I suspect to be the case-- then all that is needed is to > fix text to make that intent clear to the community and to WG > members who have not participated in the previous discussions. > That should be helpful for the Chair(s), for the ADs and for the > community. > > >> First, a process point: If these significant changes were > >> made by the IESG to what was submitted, these should have > >> been brought back to the list for approval. > > > > I regard this as being up to the chair of the group. The > > charter that wasn't posted was iterated on by both the chairs > > and the IESG. > > Then this is an objection to the textual form of the charter > version you posted as well as to the form the Secretariat > posted. If the "extend IMAP" issues are settled, then let's get > that fact documented in the charter to prevent later surprises > and unpleasantness. If they are not, then let's either > > * Hold a review of those issues by some body whose > responsibility is to the Internet, and Internet mail, > infrastructure is taken broadly, not just accomodating a > few new capabilities. Have that review before the WG is > initiated, and make its conclusions binding on the WG. > > * Provide, in the charter, a community review point at > the initiation of significant extension work on IMAP or > anything else(were such work to be initiated), so that > we don't get a pushback situation well into the 11th > hour. > > regards, > john > > > - This list is maintained by Snowshore Networks - http://www.snowshore.com All comments on this list are the comments of the message originators and Snowshore is not to be held responsible for any actions or comments found on this list. The archives for this list can be found at http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/um_archive/maillist.html From owner-um@snowshore.com Thu Jan 30 13:46:31 2003 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id h0UIkUC13835 for um-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:46:30 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: flyingfox.snowshore.com: majordomo set sender to owner-um@mail.snowshore.com using -f Received: from zoe.office.snowshore.com (keeper.snowshore.com [216.57.133.4]) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h0UIkTx13831 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:46:29 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [UM] Re: WG Review: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service environments (lemonade) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:46:26 -0500 Message-ID: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209D2DF75C@zoe.office.snowshore.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [UM] Re: WG Review: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service environments (lemonade) Thread-Index: AcLH4HxvGzuenBtTTkGmw5QkUSpY9QAr1Igw From: "Eric Burger" To: "Pete Resnick" , "UM list" Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by flyingfox.snowshore.com id h0UIkTx13832 Sender: owner-um@snowshore.com Precedence: bulk Because the feedback from the IESG was the predictable "profile=no WG" response :-( > -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 4:50 PM > To: UM list > Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com > Subject: [UM] Re: WG Review: Enhancements to Internet email to support > diverse service environments (lemonade) > > > On 1/29/03 at 1:06 PM -0800, ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote: > > >I regard this as being up to the chair of the group. The charter > >[...] was iterated on by both the chairs and the IESG. > > Ned is right. This is up to the chairs. I think it is a > responsibility of the chairs. So, on that note: > > We spent a good deal of time on this list getting the "profile" > language into the original version of the charter. Why did the chairs > agree to having it removed without consulting with the list, and what > reason was there for removing that language? Is "enhance" supposed to > include "extend and/or profile"? Certainly the September 2003 > milestone says "extensions". Also: > > - Why was IMAP called out specifically? Does the IESG really prefer > this group to use IMAP over other choices? > - What does "other servers" mean in the context of item 3? > - Is discussion of message submission summarily out of scope now? > > pr > -- > Pete Resnick > QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: > (858)651-1102 > - > This list is maintained by Snowshore Networks - > http://www.snowshore.com > All comments on this list are the comments of the message > originators and > Snowshore is not to be held responsible for any actions or > comments found > on this list. The archives for this list can be found at > http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/um_archive/maillist.html > - This list is maintained by Snowshore Networks - http://www.snowshore.com All comments on this list are the comments of the message originators and Snowshore is not to be held responsible for any actions or comments found on this list. The archives for this list can be found at http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/um_archive/maillist.html From owner-um@snowshore.com Thu Jan 30 16:49:05 2003 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id h0ULn2N17072 for um-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:49:02 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: flyingfox.snowshore.com: majordomo set sender to owner-um@mail.snowshore.com using -f Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com (numenor.qualcomm.com [129.46.51.58]) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h0ULn1x17068 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:49:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from magus.qualcomm.com (magus.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.148]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.12.3/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id h0ULmu2d028461 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:48:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.46.74.134] (loud.qualcomm.com [129.46.74.134]) by magus.qualcomm.com (8.12.3/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id h0ULmn9A008570; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:48:50 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200301282312.SAA11118@ietf.org> <169878963.1043847608@p3.JCK.COM> <175052472.1043852782@p3.JCK.COM> <01KRT49TEUKI002DEU@mauve.mrochek.com> X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X v6.0a Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:48:05 -0800 To: Pete Resnick , um@snowshore.com From: Randall Gellens Subject: [UM] Re: WG Review: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service environments (lemonade) Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b25 Sender: owner-um@snowshore.com Precedence: bulk I also dislike the addition of specific references to WAP. We don't want to exclude HTTP based MMS from the same consideration as WAP-based (especially since WAP includes optional use of HTTP). Echoing what Pete said, what did happen to message submission? That seems to be a very important components (especially features such as forward-without-download and so on). -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly-selected tag: --------------- Law of Probability Dispersal: Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed. - This list is maintained by Snowshore Networks - http://www.snowshore.com All comments on this list are the comments of the message originators and Snowshore is not to be held responsible for any actions or comments found on this list. The archives for this list can be found at http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/um_archive/maillist.html From owner-um@snowshore.com Thu Jan 30 16:57:26 2003 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id h0ULvGH17245 for um-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:57:16 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: flyingfox.snowshore.com: majordomo set sender to owner-um@mail.snowshore.com using -f Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com (numenor.qualcomm.com [129.46.51.58]) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h0ULvEx17241 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:57:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from neophyte.qualcomm.com (neophyte.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.149]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.12.3/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id h0ULv52d029019 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:57:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.46.74.134] (loud.qualcomm.com [129.46.74.134]) by neophyte.qualcomm.com (8.12.3/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id h0ULuwsd000179; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:56:59 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <181950110.1043859679@p3.JCK.COM> References: <200301282312.SAA11118@ietf.org> <169878963.1043847608@p3.JCK.COM> <175052472.1043852782@p3.JCK.COM> <01KRT49TEUKI002DEU@mauve.mrochek.com> <181950110.1043859679@p3.JCK.COM> X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X v6.0a Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:56:53 -0800 To: John C Klensin , "ned.freed@mrochek.com" , Pete Resnick From: Randall Gellens Subject: [UM] Re: WG Review: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service environments (lemonade) Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" , "iesg@ietf.org" , um@snowshore.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b25 Sender: owner-um@snowshore.com Precedence: bulk At 5:01 PM -0500 1/29/03, John C Klensin wrote: > But my primary concern (and one of those on which Pete and I are > apparently in agreement) remains: when I read "enhance...IMAP", I > don't infer "narrow the protocol for use in this environment" or > "specify a way to use the existing protocol to accomodate these > needs". Instead, I infer "new feature", "new capability", and > "putting more stuff into the protocol". I think there is > considerable resistance in the community to making IMAP bigger -- > while the four messages that have shown up on the list are not much > of a sample, I observe that at least three of them have included > "make it smaller, not larger" positions. This raises an interesting point that may be in danger of being obscured. I think there is general agreement that IMAP is too complex. However, concepts such as "IMAP lite" (or even "IMAP light"), simplification, pruning, etc. can be understood in very different ways. It could mean simplifying interoperability by reducing options and eliminating permitted behavioral differences (especially among servers). It could also mean taking out commands and responses. The former can be accomplished in an interoperable way; a new IMAP revision or capability could be defined which includes a number of previous options, and specifies varies behavioral aspects (along the lines of RFC 1123). Clients written to previous versions of IMAP would be able to interoperate with a new server just fine. The latter, while making the protocol simpler and easier to understand and implement, risks being non-interoperable with previous versions. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly-selected tag: --------------- A server is only as secure as its dumbest administrator --Steve Dorner - This list is maintained by Snowshore Networks - http://www.snowshore.com All comments on this list are the comments of the message originators and Snowshore is not to be held responsible for any actions or comments found on this list. The archives for this list can be found at http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/um_archive/maillist.html From owner-um@snowshore.com Thu Jan 30 17:00:21 2003 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id h0UM0Lq17348 for um-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:00:21 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: flyingfox.snowshore.com: majordomo set sender to owner-um@mail.snowshore.com using -f Received: from zoe.office.snowshore.com (keeper.snowshore.com [216.57.133.4]) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h0UM0Kx17344 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:00:20 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [UM] Re: WG Review: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service environments (lemonade) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:00:17 -0500 Message-ID: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209D2DF766@zoe.office.snowshore.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [UM] Re: WG Review: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service environments (lemonade) Thread-Index: AcLIqXMagmoFdkDYTEOutYai/4r+cgAAVxYA From: "Eric Burger" To: "Randall Gellens" , "Pete Resnick" , "UM list" Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by flyingfox.snowshore.com id h0UM0Kx17345 Sender: owner-um@snowshore.com Precedence: bulk We had to put in the WAP entry to have a specific protocol. The IESG did not like the idea of "license" to play with a host of proprietary protocols. I don't know what happened to message submission. It is certainly on the reading list, but you are correct, it's not on the charter. Ned? > -----Original Message----- > From: Randall Gellens [mailto:randy@qualcomm.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:48 PM > To: Pete Resnick; UM list > Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com > Subject: [UM] Re: WG Review: Enhancements to Internet email to support > diverse service environments (lemonade) > > > I also dislike the addition of specific references to WAP. We don't > want to exclude HTTP based MMS from the same consideration as > WAP-based (especially since WAP includes optional use of HTTP). > > Echoing what Pete said, what did happen to message submission? That > seems to be a very important components (especially features such as > forward-without-download and so on). > -- > Randall Gellens > Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for > myself only > -------------- Randomly-selected tag: --------------- > Law of Probability Dispersal: Whatever it is that hits the fan will > not be evenly distributed. > - > This list is maintained by Snowshore Networks - http://www.snowshore.com All comments on this list are the comments of the message originators and Snowshore is not to be held responsible for any actions or comments found on this list. The archives for this list can be found at http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/um_archive/maillist.html - This list is maintained by Snowshore Networks - http://www.snowshore.com All comments on this list are the comments of the message originators and Snowshore is not to be held responsible for any actions or comments found on this list. The archives for this list can be found at http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/um_archive/maillist.html From owner-um@snowshore.com Thu Jan 30 17:14:54 2003 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id h0UMEsK17619 for um-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:14:54 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: flyingfox.snowshore.com: majordomo set sender to owner-um@mail.snowshore.com using -f Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com (ithilien.qualcomm.com [129.46.51.59]) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h0UMEqx17615; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:14:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from magus.qualcomm.com (magus.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.148]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.12.3/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id h0UMElmI021009; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:14:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.46.74.134] (loud.qualcomm.com [129.46.74.134]) by magus.qualcomm.com (8.12.3/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id h0UMEe9A012993; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:14:41 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209D2DF766@zoe.office.snowshore.com> References: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209D2DF766@zoe.office.snowshore.com> X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X v6.0a Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:10:28 -0800 To: "Eric Burger" , "Randall Gellens" , "Pete Resnick" , "UM list" From: Randall Gellens Subject: RE: [UM] Re: WG Review: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service environments (lemonade) Cc: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b25 Sender: owner-um@snowshore.com Precedence: bulk At 5:00 PM -0500 1/30/03, Eric Burger wrote: > We had to put in the WAP entry to have a specific protocol. The > IESG did not like the idea of "license" to play with a host of > proprietary protocols. Then maybe we should have "WAP or similar" or "WAP, etc.". -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly-selected tag: --------------- I've been good, and I've been bad, but common sense I never had. --New Order, "Shellshock" - This list is maintained by Snowshore Networks - http://www.snowshore.com All comments on this list are the comments of the message originators and Snowshore is not to be held responsible for any actions or comments found on this list. The archives for this list can be found at http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/um_archive/maillist.html From owner-um@snowshore.com Thu Jan 30 23:40:39 2003 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id h0V4eYU23742 for um-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 23:40:34 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: flyingfox.snowshore.com: majordomo set sender to owner-um@mail.snowshore.com using -f Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com (numenor.qualcomm.com [129.46.51.58]) by flyingfox.snowshore.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h0V4eWx23738 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 23:40:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from crowley.qualcomm.com (crowley.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.151]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.12.3/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id h0V4eJ2d019602 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:40:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.46.74.134] (vpn-10-50-0-11.qualcomm.com [10.50.0.11]) by crowley.qualcomm.com (8.12.3/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id h0V4eD5O021423; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:40:13 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <43117369.1043957244@p3.JCK.COM> References: <200301282312.SAA11118@ietf.org> <169878963.1043847608@p3.JCK.COM> <175052472.1043852782@p3.JCK.COM> <01KRT49TEUKI002DEU@mauve.mrochek.com> <181950110.1043859679@p3.JCK.COM> <43117369.1043957244@p3.JCK.COM> X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X v6.0a Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:39:27 -0800 To: John C Klensin , Randall Gellens , John C Klensin , "ned.freed@mrochek.com" , Pete Resnick From: Randall Gellens Subject: [UM] Re: WG Review: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service environments (lemonade) Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" , "iesg@ietf.org" , "um@snowshore.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b25 Sender: owner-um@snowshore.com Precedence: bulk At 8:07 PM -0500 1/30/03, John C Klensin wrote: > This really isn't worth much discussion unless someone is really > going to launch such an effort, but I don't see the distinction as > clearly as you do. One concern I had was that there would appear to be agreement that lemonade would "simplify IMAP", but in reality people expected different things, and would then object when the WG produced something different. "Simplifying" can mean different things. > We already have a situation in which some clients won't > interoperate well with some servers because the clients think they > need certain capabilities that those servers don't support. And we > have other server authors that have refused to implement certain > features because they (the authors) are convinced those features > are brain-damaged. True. > I'd like to see a WG give careful consideration to the question of > the damage that would be done by pulling commands and replacing > them with better/ cleaner designs as well as the type of revision I > think you anticipate with the first case. IMAP does a lot of things. It provides access to messages, information about those messages, various mailbox management things, access to information about mailboxes, creation of messages, and so on. There's been suggestions over the years that this is really too much for one protocol, that, for example, mailbox management should be a different protocol. There was some interest a while back in using ACAP to provide information about mailboxes and messages, leaving IMAP to just offer access to the messages. On the other hand, one of the complaints by people implementing Internet mail clients on handsets and palm devices is that there are too many protocols, each with its own syntax. SMTP, IMAP, MIME and so on all require different parsers. Adding still more protocols would make this aspect worse. > But, in the last analysis, IMAP4bis is still at Proposed. Like > you, I'd prefer something easier to implement and deploy that is > fully compatible with IMAP4bis. But, if that isn't possible, then > I think it would be rational to consider other alternatives, with > the understanding that some implementations would try to be > conforming to both the older and newer versions and that it would > be wise to design things so as to make that possible. I think people have tended to be scared of this approach. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly-selected tag: --------------- Support the League of Winged Voters --Firesign Theatre - This list is maintained by Snowshore Networks - http://www.snowshore.com All comments on this list are the comments of the message originators and Snowshore is not to be held responsible for any actions or comments found on this list. The archives for this list can be found at http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/um_archive/maillist.html