Subject: RE: [lemonade] Re: Point-of-order re IMAPEXT (Was: draft-royer-le monade-submit-00.txt)

From: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 19:08:59 -0500

Lemonade is addressing the needs of "diverse endpoints", one of which, and the most challenging of which, it mobile clients.  There is also a strong constituency for addressing the needs of the telephone user interface, one that has different demands in terms of low, predictable latency, real-time streaming, and support for message context in sorting and counting messages.

This is not a mobile-only working group.  Forward without download is just as important for a telephone user interface.

Greg V.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 5:53 PM
To: Pete Resnick
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [lemonade] Re: Point-of-order re IMAPEXT (Was:
draft-royer-lemonade-submit-00.txt)

Well, Pete, I agree with you that "nothing belongs in IMAPEXT that isn't
already on the charter of IMAPEXT", and confess a backdoor motivation;
shove "submit as a general extension for all clients, not just mobile
clients" from LEMONADE (where extensions for non-mobile clients are
outside of charter) to IMAPEXT, which promptly tosses it as outside of its
charter.

> That a proposed solution is
> an IMAP extension is not a basis for saying it does not belong in
> LEMONADE.

No, but...:

The charter states that "Lemonade is tasked to provide a set of
enhancements and profiles of Internet email submission, transport, and
retrieval protocols to facilitate operation on platforms with constrained
resources, or communications links with high latency or limited
bandwidth."

The submit document explicitly states that it is to be used on others
platforms.  What's more, the submit document does not address work item
(2) at all.

Since the submit document covers platforms other than what is in the
charter, and because it does not address any of the work items of the
charter, I claim that it does not belong in LEMONADE.

A possible fix to this document would be to remove all references to
non-mobile clients and to add the functionality for work item (2).

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 19:44:08 -0600

> Lemonade is addressing the needs of "diverse endpoints", one of which, 
> and the most challenging of which, it mobile clients.  There is also a 
> strong constituency for addressing the needs of the telephone user 
> interface

So before we get totally mired in details, it would be a good idea to 
enumerate the characteristics of these various endpoint devices. 
Otherwise, we don't know what problems we're trying to solve.

--lyndon

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:29:56 -0600

> Otherwise, we don't know what problems we're trying to solve.

As I understand it, one problem is limited bandwidh and limited
memory or storage on the client. And I think that the key item is
forwarding of message or body parts without download.

The charter clearly says IMAP (among other things) So that looks
to me to mean extending existing protocols.

There are other goals and it does not look to me as if the charter
says that everything must be in one unified spec.

-- 

  Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
  -------------------------------|-----------------------------
  [email-masked]                 | Office: (208)612-INET
  http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                                 |   Cell: (208)520-4044

                 We Do Standards - You Need Standards