From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 09:47:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27604 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:47:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARul4-0003AR-L9 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:47:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4ElA7V012171 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:47:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARul4-0003AE-Hb for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:47:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27594 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:46:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARul2-0002Md-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:47:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARul2-0002MZ-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:47:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARukv-00033f-4c; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:47:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARuks-00033D-At for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:46:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27584 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:46:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARukq-0002MQ-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:46:56 -0500 Received: from goalie.snowshore.com ([216.57.133.4] helo=webshield.office.snowshore.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARukp-0002Ku-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:46:55 -0500 Received: from zoe.office.snowshore.com(192.168.1.172) by webshield.office.snowshore.com via csmap id 27798; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:51:53 -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" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:46:25 -0500 Message-ID: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209D4F6A79@zoe.office.snowshore.com> Thread-Topic: 58th IETF Meeting minutes : LEMONADE - Nov 10 Thread-Index: AcOn1cPRVD6k5A3qTX6l2kQJ9vzoQQSnfHSQ From: "Eric Burger" To: "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [lemonade] FW: 58th IETF Meeting minutes : LEMONADE - Nov 10 Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is anyone awake? I'm certainly not :-( Looking over the list archives, I saw my posting asking for comments to = the minutes. However, NO ONE NOTICED I DIDN'T POST THE MINUTES! Let's call this a final call on the minutes. Please look over and send = any comments by December 15. Great thanks go to Madan for taking notes! -----Original Message----- Nov 10 2003 - Monday - 1.00pm - 3.00pm + Agenda was described as the starting item by Glenn + Goals of lemonade by Glenn - Describes Uses cases and possible scenarios. - On context and motivation=20 - De-emphasize on the requirement aspect + MMS Mapping by Randell - Update to the existing draft would be "Mapping of delivery of msgs in MMS world and eMail world" + IMAP Push/Pull started by Glenn - After the presentation, decision to be made on which approach to go. + Submit without download by Randell - Depending on who is the activie entity IMAP Push and Pull are differentiated, ie., whether IMAP server or the Submit server - Various alternates mechanism by which IMAP PUSH can be done were presented. * Submit Intrinsically Submit through IMAP Notes : Queueing of messages Generate DSNs Relaying Like Sendmail functionality in IMAP =20 * Proxy method Redendency in operation Issues in athentication/Authorization Complexity Administrationissues - Various alternate mechanism by which IMAP PULL can be done were presented. * Submit server access IMAP for messages * Per-Mailbox access keys * URL includes time/role/user and signatures using mailbox secrets. - IMAP COMPOSE Resolves many issues Independent of PUSH and PULL - URL AUTH Expiry time/User identity/Role identity were described. + URL Auth by Chris and Mark One of the pull method. Changes : Authid and Authrole are included HMAC-MD5 Upcoming changes : Generate the secret key on demand. Anonymous access ( Autherization without authentication ) Hash function Default configuration There was a long discussion oon URL AUTH,=20 - When the secret should be generated.=20 - Who creates the Ticket, Client or Server. Ans : Client - Round trip in getting the tickets - To be decided : Secrets per mailbox or per user. - Specify both mechanism in the document. + Scalable mail environment by Chris: If the message store, outbound MTA and inbound MTA are seperated, significant performance boost was observed during his experimentation. =20 - Security concerns in URLAUTH were discussed : * TLS Protection * Should not store URL without protection. - Where the queue should be, is not specified. - Document should be free from assumptions + IMAP COMPOSE by Pete - Simplifies other uses. + Decision on Which way 2 go : PUSH Vs PULL Currently we dont have enough technical details to make a decision Before deciding, deployment cost should be considered. Make the changes in one place or two places. Arugment was that in Pull method, both IMAP and submit server should be touched. Concentrate on this (email)specific problem and work on a solution. Dont try to get a generic solution righ now. Current specificatoin impact on Scalable mail were desribed. NOTE: There should be a revisions of COMPOSE, Push and Pull method drafts by Dec 17. After which the decision on which method to follow will be decided. + IMAP4 Profile + S2S notification by Gev documents out-of-scope is descibed : subscription Notification service. + What it does : User identifcation Server notification service Store and Forward Reliablity Event ordering ( Queue / Time stamp )=20 Dynamic structure ( Structure should be dynamic with respect to the notification request ) Security Should extensible enough to take care of end-end notification in future Discussions : - this draft is not listed on the work group items but it was sent to mailing list - Requirements were not clear Explicit boundary should be defined Structures Semantics required Event naming required Milestones : Jan04 : Goals, S2S, Streaming multimedia Apr04 : Forward without download documents=20 Jun04 : Profile for Mpbile devices Jul04 : Translation to other msg systmes. Milestones should be granular. _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 10:16:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29872 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:16:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARvD1-0005DV-RZ for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:16:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4FG3bl020050 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:16:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARvD1-0005DJ-K8 for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:16:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29810 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:15:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARvCz-0002oz-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:16:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARvCz-0002ow-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:16:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARvCz-0005CE-PA; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:16:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARvCl-0005BX-C0 for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:15:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29780 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:15:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARvCj-0002of-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:15:45 -0500 Received: from palrel10.hp.com ([156.153.255.245]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARvCi-0002oc-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:15:44 -0500 Received: from iconsrv5.india.hp.com (iconsrv5.india.hp.com [15.42.229.13]) by palrel10.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAD3A1C01DC4; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:15:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from india.hp.com (nt23060.india.hp.com [15.42.230.60]) by iconsrv5.india.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_29774)/8.9.3 SMKit7.02) with ESMTP id UAA14559; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:43:37 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3FCF4F6F.5060906@india.hp.com> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:44:55 +0530 From: Madan Ganesh Velayudham User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Burger Cc: "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: Re: [lemonade] FW: 58th IETF Meeting minutes : LEMONADE - Nov 10 References: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209D4F6A79@zoe.office.snowshore.com> In-Reply-To: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209D4F6A79@zoe.office.snowshore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric Burger wrote: >Is anyone awake? I'm certainly not :-( > >Looking over the list archives, I saw my posting asking for comments to the minutes. However, NO ONE NOTICED I DIDN'T POST THE MINUTES! > > Since this was my first IETF, i was in an assumption that Minutes will be kept in some URLs :-) >Let's call this a final call on the minutes. Please look over and send any comments by December 15. > >Great thanks go to Madan for taking notes! > Welcome ! Cheers, MG > >-----Original Message----- > Nov 10 2003 - Monday - 1.00pm - 3.00pm > + Agenda was described as the starting item by Glenn > + Goals of lemonade by Glenn > - Describes Uses cases and possible scenarios. > - On context and motivation > - De-emphasize on the requirement aspect > + MMS Mapping by Randell > - Update to the existing draft would be "Mapping of >delivery of msgs in MMS world and eMail world" > + IMAP Push/Pull started by Glenn > - After the presentation, decision to be made on >which approach to go. > + Submit without download by Randell > - Depending on who is the activie entity IMAP Push >and Pull are differentiated, ie., whether IMAP server >or the Submit server > - Various alternates mechanism by which IMAP PUSH >can be done were presented. > * Submit Intrinsically > Submit through IMAP > Notes : > Queueing of messages > Generate DSNs > Relaying > Like Sendmail functionality in IMAP > * Proxy method > Redendency in operation > Issues in athentication/Authorization > Complexity > Administrationissues > - Various alternate mechanism by which IMAP PULL >can be done were presented. > * Submit server access IMAP for messages > * Per-Mailbox access keys > * URL includes time/role/user and signatures >using mailbox secrets. > - IMAP COMPOSE > Resolves many issues > Independent of PUSH and PULL > - URL AUTH > Expiry time/User identity/Role identity were >described. > + URL Auth by Chris and Mark > One of the pull method. > Changes : > Authid and Authrole are included > HMAC-MD5 > Upcoming changes : > Generate the secret key on demand. > Anonymous access ( Autherization without >authentication ) > Hash function > Default configuration > > There was a long discussion oon URL AUTH, > - When the secret should be generated. > - Who creates the Ticket, Client or Server. Ans : >Client > - Round trip in getting the tickets > - To be decided : Secrets per mailbox or per user. > - Specify both mechanism in the document. > > + Scalable mail environment by Chris: > If the message store, outbound MTA and inbound >MTA are seperated, significant performance boost was >observed during his experimentation. > > - Security concerns in URLAUTH were discussed : > * TLS Protection > * Should not store URL without protection. > - Where the queue should be, is not specified. > - Document should be free from assumptions > > + IMAP COMPOSE by Pete > - Simplifies other uses. > + Decision on Which way 2 go : PUSH Vs PULL > Currently we dont have enough technical details to >make a decision > Before deciding, deployment cost should be >considered. Make the changes in one place or two >places. Arugment was that in Pull method, both IMAP >and submit server should be touched. > Concentrate on this (email)specific problem and >work on a solution. Dont try to get a generic solution >righ now. > Current specificatoin impact on Scalable mail were >desribed. > NOTE: There should be a revisions of COMPOSE, Push >and Pull method drafts by Dec 17. After which the >decision on which method to follow will be decided. > + IMAP4 Profile > + S2S notification by Gev > documents out-of-scope is descibed : > subscription > Notification service. > + What it does : > User identifcation > Server notification service > Store and Forward > Reliablity > Event ordering ( Queue / Time stamp ) > Dynamic structure ( Structure should be dynamic >with respect to the notification request ) > Security > Should extensible enough to take care of end-end >notification in future > > Discussions : > - this draft is not listed on the work group >items but it was sent to mailing list > - Requirements were not clear > Explicit boundary should be defined > Structures > Semantics required > Event naming required > > Milestones : > > Jan04 : Goals, S2S, Streaming multimedia > Apr04 : Forward without download documents > Jun04 : Profile for Mpbile devices > Jul04 : Translation to other msg systmes. > > Milestones should be granular. > > >_______________________________________________ >lemonade mailing list >lemonade@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade > > > > _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 5 13:42:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17751 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:42:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASKty-0008JS-Mf for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:42:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB5Ig6A8031950 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:42:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASKty-0008JF-I5 for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:42:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17734 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:41:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASKtw-0007MQ-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:42:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASKtw-0007MM-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:42:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASKts-0008Ir-69; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:42:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASKtj-0008IP-Ka for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:41:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17726 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:41:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASKth-0007Ls-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:41:49 -0500 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASKtg-0007Lo-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:41:48 -0500 Received: from magus.qualcomm.com (magus.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.148]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hB5IfkVY005306 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:41:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.13] (vpn-10-50-0-91.qualcomm.com [10.50.0.91]) by magus.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hB5IfhFB004561; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:41:44 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209D4F6A79@zoe.office.snowshore.com> References: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209D4F6A79@zoe.office.snowshore.com> X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X v6.1a Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:38:21 -0800 To: "Eric Burger" , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" From: Randall Gellens Subject: Re: [lemonade] FW: 58th IETF Meeting minutes : LEMONADE - Nov 10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b26 Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Minor corrections: At 9:46 AM -0500 12/4/03, Eric Burger wrote: > + MMS Mapping by Randell > - Update to the existing draft would be "Mapping of > delivery of msgs in MMS world and eMail world" The biggest change in the pending update is the addition of mapping between delivery and disposition reports in the MMS and Email worlds. > + URL Auth by Chris and Mark > One of the pull method. > Changes : > Authid and Authrole are included > HMAC-MD5 > Upcoming changes : > Generate the secret key on demand. > Anonymous access ( Autherization without > authentication ) I don't think anonymous access is an upcoming change, it's been a (the?) primary element of URL AUTH from the beginning. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly-selected tag: --------------- "SF Public Defender: Reasonable Doubt at a Reasonable Price" --Seen on back of jacket worn by P-D staffer, as reported by Herb Cain in Chronicle _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 5 23:17:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09109 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:17:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASTsT-0001eL-VS for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:17:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB64H9Cv006320 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:17:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASTsR-0001dr-U9 for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:17:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09099 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:16:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASTsP-0007KH-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:17:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASTsP-0007KE-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:17:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASTsL-0001dS-Fa; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:17:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASTrf-0001cx-AC for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:16:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09081 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:16:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASTrc-0007Ig-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:16:16 -0500 Received: from 216-43-25-66.ip.mcleodusa.net ([216.43.25.66] helo=episteme-software.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASTrb-0007IU-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:16:15 -0500 Received: from [129.46.77.83] (129.46.77.83) by episteme-software.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.3b2) for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 22:15:46 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 6.1a5] Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 20:15:43 -0800 To: Lemonade From: Pete Resnick Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [lemonade] CATENATE draft Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I've just sent in a draft to the secretariat for the IMAP command to do composition. I've called it CATENATE. If you'd like to have a peek before it gets posted, you can look at: pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 7 09:30:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24211 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 09:30:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASzvL-00061B-Mv for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 09:30:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB7EUFXP023127 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 09:30:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASzvL-0005zb-Fg for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 09:30:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24159 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 09:30:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASzvJ-0001dA-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 09:30:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASzvJ-0001d6-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 09:30:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASzv9-0005ud-QJ; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 09:30:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASzui-0005rO-37 for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 09:29:36 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24122 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 09:29:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASzug-0001c3-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 09:29:34 -0500 Received: from rufus.isode.com ([62.3.217.251]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASzuf-0001bB-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 09:29:33 -0500 Received: from isode.com ([62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (with SMTP (internal)) with ESMTPA; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:32:46 +0000 Message-ID: <3FD33929.2010304@isode.com> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 14:28:57 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Resnick CC: Lemonade Subject: Re: [lemonade] CATENATE draft References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pete Resnick wrote: > I've just sent in a draft to the secretariat for the IMAP command to > do composition. I've called it CATENATE. If you'd like to have a peek > before it gets posted, you can look at: > > > > I think I like using URLs better than "seq-number section [partial]" triples. Besides, an implementation may choose to recognize *only* imap URLs and *only* in the current mailbox. Alexey __________________________________________ Isode Limited, http://www.isode.com IETF standard related pages: http://www.melnikov.ca/mel/devel/Links.html __________________________________________ _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 17:59:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09350 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:59:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATULp-0001xV-Gk for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:59:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8MxbDh007523 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:59:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATULp-0001xF-7r for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:59:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09305 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:59:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATULm-0000hr-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:59:34 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATULl-0000h7-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:59:33 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATULF-0001s7-Jv; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATRuo-00034s-42 for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:23:34 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29318; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:23:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200312082023.PAA29318@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: lemonade@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:23:18 -0500 Subject: [lemonade] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-lemonade-catenate-00.txt Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service environments Working Group of the IETF. Title : Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) CATENATE Extension Author(s) : P. Resnick Filename : draft-ietf-lemonade-catenate-00.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2003-12-8 The CATENATE extension to the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) allows clients to create messages on the IMAP server which may contain a combination of new data along with parts of (or entire) messages already on the server. Using this extension, the client can catenate parts of an already existing message on to a new message without having to first download the data and then upload it back to the server. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lemonade-catenate-00.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-lemonade-catenate-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lemonade-catenate-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-8151949.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lemonade-catenate-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-lemonade-catenate-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-8151949.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 17:59:51 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09365 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:59:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATULq-0001xs-0t for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:59:38 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8Mxbef007540 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:59:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATULp-0001xK-Cm for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:59:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09308 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:59:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATULm-0000hv-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:59:34 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATULl-0000h6-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:59:33 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATULF-0001rw-8g; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARwrr-0002X6-Ic for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:02:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04365 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:02:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARwro-0004gq-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:02:16 -0500 Received: from [65.125.189.56] (helo=drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARwrl-0004gc-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:02:14 -0500 Received: from drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id hB4H1Wjh001051; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:01:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:01:32 -0800 From: Marshall Rose To: "Eric Burger" Cc: "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: Re: [lemonade] FW: 58th IETF Meeting minutes : LEMONADE - Nov 10 Message-Id: <20031204090132.25bf2b63.mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us> In-Reply-To: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209D4F6A79@zoe.office.snowshore.com> References: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209D4F6A79@zoe.office.snowshore.com> Organization: Dover Beach Consulting, Inc. X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.11claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Looking over the list archives, I saw my posting asking for comments to the > minutes. However, NO ONE NOTICED I DIDN'T POST THE MINUTES! sorry, i thought you were being post-ironic. /mtr _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 12:50:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05464 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:50:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATlzs-000056-GF for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:50:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9Ho84O000304 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:50:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATlzs-0008WV-AN for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:50:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05401 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:49:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATlzq-0004A7-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:50:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATlzq-0004A4-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:50:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATlzl-0008TB-HS; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:50:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATlz9-0008S7-PM for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:49:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05328 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:49:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATlz8-00047m-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:49:22 -0500 Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATlz7-00047g-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:49:21 -0500 Received: from sabrina.qualcomm.com (sabrina.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.150]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hB9Hn94t011878 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:49:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [67.29.225.225] (vpn-10-50-0-99.qualcomm.com [10.50.0.99]) by sabrina.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hB9Hn30O023438 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:49:05 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X v6.1a Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 00:58:58 -0800 To: lemonade@ietf.org From: Randall Gellens Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b26 Subject: [lemonade] IMAP Push Draft Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I've sent in a first draft on the detailed protocol for IMAP push. If you'd like to look at it before it gets posted, you can get it from . Please read soon and send me or the list your comments and suggestions so I can do an updated draft before the 17th (the deadline we agreed to in Minneapolis). -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly-selected tag: --------------- Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong. --Oscar Wilde _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 02:58:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03420 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:58:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATzEb-0007oc-GY for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:58:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBA7wD5C030034 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:58:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATzEZ-0007oK-Ab for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:58:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03415 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:58:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATzEV-0005Ic-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:58:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATzEV-0005IY-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:58:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATzEP-0007md-8o; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATzDw-0007ly-QE for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:57:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03408 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:57:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATzDs-0005IO-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:57:28 -0500 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATzDs-0005IL-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:57:28 -0500 Received: from crowley.qualcomm.com (crowley.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.151]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBA7vRVY013295 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:57:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.10.243.64] (vpn-10-50-0-25.qualcomm.com [10.50.0.25]) by crowley.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBA7vLhk010268 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:57:23 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X v6.1a Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:11:44 -0800 To: lemonade@ietf.org From: Randall Gellens Subject: Re: [lemonade] IMAP Push Draft Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b26 Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > I've sent in a first draft on the detailed protocol for IMAP push. > If you'd like to look at it before it gets posted, you can get it > from > . > > Please read soon and send me or the list your comments and > suggestions so I can do an updated draft before the 17th (the > deadline we agreed to in Minneapolis). If you tried to get it from the FTP server and couldn't connect, please try again. The system had some hardware problems (while I'm away on travel of course) but I understand it should be back up now. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly-selected tag: --------------- They're only trying to make me LOOK paranoid! _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 16:54:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20475 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:54:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUCHT-0000vV-O4 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:54:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBALs3sw003555 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:54:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUCHT-0000vC-Fe for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:54:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20465 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:54:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCHQ-0002yI-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:54:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCHQ-0002yF-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:54:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUCHQ-0000sx-VR; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:54:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUCHI-0000rA-Mp for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:53:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20452 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:53:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCHF-0002xy-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:53:50 -0500 Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCHF-0002xv-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:53:49 -0500 Received: from sabrina.qualcomm.com (sabrina.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.150]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBALrm4t027886 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:53:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.46.227.161] (carbuncle.qualcomm.com [129.46.227.161]) by sabrina.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBALrk0O009274; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:53:46 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hardie@mage.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:53:45 -0800 To: Randall Gellens , lemonade@ietf.org From: Ted Hardie Subject: Re: [lemonade] IMAP Push Draft Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , So, reading this I kind of wonder what use case we believe will be most common here. I see what Randy has written as providing a fairly complete annotation-based mechanism for generating the envelope to use with a message "created" with APPEND or CATENATE. Since it defaults to a pending/queued state, this message and envelope could theoretically be developed in one client and the SUBMIT issued by another (the value of annotations, really). All of that seems like goodness. I'm wondering, though, whether the common use case isn't going to be one which would be satisfied by a "bounce"-like simplicity. My naive thinking has been the most common use of this will be someone getting a message to mailbox1 (say, on a cell phone) and wanting it on a different server (say, their enterprise server). No composition really, just a redirection. If that is going to be the common case, then having an algorithm for defaults for some of these might be very useful, as it would allow simple clients to use the "bounce" version of this without having to use annotations (much or at all). Not that this would be the only way it would work (obviously, the forward-with-comments and compose mechanisms have great utility), just that a profile of this that is that simple might be a good idea. Thoughts? Ted _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 12 11:45:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15559 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:45:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqPc-0002jv-7a for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:45:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBCGj8nV010525 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:45:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqPc-0002jg-2Q for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:45:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15543 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:45:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqPb-0000wm-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:45:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqPa-0000wi-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:45:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqPY-0002ir-Kn; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:45:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUAlU-0004br-FS for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:16:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14143 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:16:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUAlQ-0000Ul-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:16:52 -0500 Received: from lin1.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.6.59]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUAlQ-0000Uh-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:16:52 -0500 Received: from SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu (SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.122.8]) (user=rjs3 mech=GSSAPI (0 bits)) by lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBAKGq6s001011; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:16:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:16:52 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Siemborski To: Randall Gellens cc: lemonade@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lemonade] IMAP Push Draft In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Randall Gellens wrote: > Please read soon and send me or the list your comments and > suggestions so I can do an updated draft before the 17th (the > deadline we agreed to in Minneapolis). If SUBMIT commands can be pipelined, how do you tell which untagged submit responses go with which message. Say I have two messages that I am sending to friend@example.org: C: a15 SUBMIT 12 C: a16 SUBMIT 13 S: * SUBMIT "RCPT TO:" "550 User over quota" S: * SUBMIT "MAIL FROM:" "450 Too many messages from in 5 minute period" S: a15 NO not my fault submission rejected by submit server S: a16 NO not my fault submission rejected by submit server How do I know which message got which reply? Or do we just not care? Also, including the address in the name of the mail-from annotation doesn't resonate well with me. Sure, its consistent with "RCPT-to" but this means I now have to pass a wildcard to get the mail-from information if I don't already know it. I don't think "being consistent" is a huge win here. Finally, aren't [annotate] and [annotatemore] normative for this spec? -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e++ h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 14 15:16:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24308 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:16:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVces-000244-CO for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:16:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBEKG6WQ007933 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:16:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVces-00023s-6L for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:16:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24246 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:16:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVcem-0002cQ-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:16:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVceM-0002cH-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:15:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVcdq-00021t-EJ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVcd7-00020U-GS for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:14:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24092 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:14:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVcd6-0002c5-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:14:16 -0500 Received: from 216-43-25-66.ip.mcleodusa.net ([216.43.25.66] helo=episteme-software.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVcd5-0002bs-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:14:16 -0500 Received: from [216.43.25.67] (216.43.25.67) by episteme-software.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.3b3); Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:13:45 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3FD33929.2010304@isode.com> References: <3FD33929.2010304@isode.com> X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 6.1a7] Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:13:44 -0600 To: Alexey Melnikov From: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: [lemonade] CATENATE draft Cc: Lemonade Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 12/7/03 at 2:28 PM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >I think I like using URLs better than "seq-number section [partial]" triples. >Besides, an implementation may choose to recognize *only* imap URLs >and *only* in the current mailbox. Three issues with using URLs: 1. Selecting multiple mailboxes: At least a couple of server folks told me that doing random mailbox access was a real pain implementation-wise because it would involve effectively doing a SELECT on multiple mailboxes. This was considered bad. 2. Which schemes are valid: How does the server indicate which URL schemes it allows? How can it further indicate that it only allows access to *this* server? Waiting until the server answers NO isn't really acceptable. 3. IMAP URLs don't allow byte ranges. I think those could turn out to be terribly handy. Again, though it might be nice to do a grand "include anything here" kind of mechanism, I think that's a little over the top for the real-world need we are trying to address. To use a completely stolen line (from MTR who I think stole it from somewhere else): Using URLs fills a well-needed gap. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I'd like to hear from other folks too before I consider such a change. pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 14 18:06:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29737 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:06:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVfJR-0006fw-EN for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:06:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBEN69u9025654 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:06:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVfJQ-0006fh-Np for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:06:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29585 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:06:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVfJN-0005Rk-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:06:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVfJN-0005Rd-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:06:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVfJL-0006eM-TA; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:06:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqer-0003Zy-Bl for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:00:53 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16290 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:00:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqeq-0001P6-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:00:52 -0500 Received: from 115.216-123-230-0.interbaun.com ([216.123.230.115] helo=peregrin.orthanc.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqep-0001Oo-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:00:51 -0500 Received: from 115.216-123-230-0.interbaun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by peregrin.orthanc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C102742F4E; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:00:18 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:00:14 -0700 From: Lyndon Nerenberg To: Rob Siemborski Cc: lemonade@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lemonade] IMAP Push Draft Message-ID: <2147483647.1071223214@115.216-123-230-0.interbaun.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 2003-12-10 3:16 PM -0500 Rob Siemborski wrote: > Say I have two messages that I am sending to friend@example.org: > > C: a15 SUBMIT 12 > C: a16 SUBMIT 13 > S: * SUBMIT "RCPT TO:" "550 User over quota" > S: * SUBMIT "MAIL FROM:" "450 Too many > messages from in 5 minute period" > S: a15 NO not my fault submission rejected by submit server > S: a16 NO not my fault submission rejected by submit server > > How do I know which message got which reply? Or do we just not care? S: * SUBMIT 12 "RCPT TO:" "550 User over quota" S: * SUBMIT 13 "MAIL FROM:" "450 Too many messages from in 5 minute period" This requires EXPUNGE to be blocked while any SUBMITs are in progress. --lyndon _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 14 18:23:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01765 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:23:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVfZj-0007FF-5X for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:22:59 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBENMxHx027848 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:22:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVfZi-0007F5-V5 for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:22:59 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01608 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:22:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVfZg-0005w6-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:22:56 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVfYF-0005sx-04 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:21:27 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AVfJQ-0005F6-4m for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:06:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVfJM-0006eb-FS; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:06:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqhQ-0004BH-N7 for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:03:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16367 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:03:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqhP-0001SF-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:03:31 -0500 Received: from lin1.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.6.59]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqhO-0001S9-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:03:30 -0500 Received: from SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu (SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.122.8]) (user=rjs3 mech=GSSAPI (0 bits)) by lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBCH3Lp9001720; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:03:21 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:03:22 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Siemborski To: Lyndon Nerenberg cc: lemonade@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lemonade] IMAP Push Draft In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1071223214@115.216-123-230-0.interbaun.com> Message-ID: References: <2147483647.1071223214@115.216-123-230-0.interbaun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > How do I know which message got which reply? Or do we just not care? > > S: * SUBMIT 12 "RCPT TO:" "550 User over quota" > S: * SUBMIT 13 "MAIL FROM:" "450 Too many > messages from in 5 minute period" > > This requires EXPUNGE to be blocked while any SUBMITs are in progress. The current draft doesn't retun the sequence numbers, but yes, that would fix the problem. I think EXPUNGE would need to be blocked while SUBMIT is in progress anyway. -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e++ h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 13:10:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18751 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:10:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVxAX-0007G7-KC for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:10:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBFIA9FM027897 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:10:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVxAW-0007Fn-TH for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:10:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18733 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:10:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVxAV-0001qx-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:10:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVxAU-0001qu-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:10:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVxAT-0007FA-2K; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:10:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVxAG-0007EO-R6 for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:09:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18727 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:09:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVxAE-0001qk-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:09:50 -0500 Received: from rufus.isode.com ([62.3.217.251]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVxAE-0001qT-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:09:50 -0500 Received: from isode.com (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (with SMTP (internal)) with ESMTPA; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:13:30 +0000 Message-ID: <3FDDF8B9.3010906@isode.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:08:57 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Resnick CC: Lemonade Subject: Re: [lemonade] CATENATE draft References: <3FD33929.2010304@isode.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pete Resnick wrote: > On 12/7/03 at 2:28 PM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > >> I think I like using URLs better than "seq-number section [partial]" >> triples. >> Besides, an implementation may choose to recognize *only* imap URLs >> and *only* in the current mailbox. > > > Three issues with using URLs: > > 1. Selecting multiple mailboxes: At least a couple of server folks > told me that doing random mailbox access was a real pain > implementation-wise because it would involve effectively doing a > SELECT on multiple mailboxes. This was considered bad. Once again, a server can check if an URL points to a mailbox which is not currently open and fail the command. We can define a new capability, saying that the server only supports catanating in the open mailbox (or vice versa: by default all server must support catanating in the open mailbox only, but some servers can support any mailboxes). > 2. Which schemes are valid: How does the server indicate which URL > schemes it allows? How can it further indicate that it only allows > access to *this* server? IMAP CHANNEL extension is already dealing with a similar problem. I don't remember syntax of the top of my head. > Waiting until the server answers NO isn't really acceptable. > > 3. IMAP URLs don't allow byte ranges. I think those could turn out to > be terribly handy. IMHO, it is time to extend URL syntax for this anyway. I remember some talks about revision IMAP URL document. > Again, though it might be nice to do a grand "include anything here" > kind of mechanism, Actually, my argument is about having a convenient (and extensible) representation of the described information. > I think that's a little over the top for the real-world need we are > trying to address. To use a completely stolen line (from MTR who I > think stole it from somewhere else): Using URLs fills a well-needed gap. > > I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I'd like to hear from other > folks too before I consider such a change. Alexey __________________________________________ Isode Limited, http://www.isode.com IETF standard related pages: http://www.melnikov.ca/mel/devel/Links.html __________________________________________ _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 16:48:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07333 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:48:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWjWd-0000ib-B1 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:48:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHLmBWn002755 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:48:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWjWd-0000iM-68 for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:48:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07308 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:48:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWjWb-0003jy-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:48:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWjWa-0003jr-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:48:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWjWa-0003jn-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:48:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWjWT-0000gf-CR; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWjVb-0000ex-85 for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:47:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07263 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:47:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWjVZ-0003ih-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:47:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWjVY-0003ia-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:47:04 -0500 Received: from goalie.snowshore.com ([216.57.133.4] helo=webshield.office.snowshore.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWjVY-0003hS-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:47:04 -0500 Received: from zoe.office.snowshore.com(192.168.1.172) by webshield.office.snowshore.com via csmap id 14714; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:51:12 -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" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:46:34 -0500 Message-ID: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209DB24108@zoe.office.snowshore.com> Thread-Topic: IETF 59 Thread-Index: AcPE5z1F7mPgIsFGRvOXMfW3eQUf9Q== From: "Eric Burger" To: "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [lemonade] IETF 59 Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It is planning time (already) for IETF 59 in Korea. A straw poll (please respond to me, NOT the list): [ ] I will attend in Seoul February 29 - March 5 [ ] I plan to attend in Seoul, but prefer these dates: ____________ [ ] I will not attend, but would be able to join a multicast session [ ] I will not be attending _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 01:51:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27673 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:51:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYgNd-00014p-Li for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:50:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBN6ovch004133 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:50:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYgNd-00014a-H1 for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:50:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27639 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:50:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYgNa-0002DW-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:50:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYgKn-0002Az-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:48:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYgKn-0002As-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:48:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYgKn-0000yn-1N; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYgKi-0000xo-2z for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:47:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27521 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:47:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYgKe-00022D-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:47:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYgDA-00020u-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:40:08 -0500 Received: from 216-43-25-66.ip.mcleodusa.net ([216.43.25.66] helo=episteme-software.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYgD9-00020d-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:40:07 -0500 Received: from [10.0.2.4] (10.0.2.4) by episteme-software.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.3b3); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:39:13 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3FDDF8B9.3010906@isode.com> References: <3FD33929.2010304@isode.com> <3FDDF8B9.3010906@isode.com> X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 6.1a7] Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:39:11 -0600 To: Alexey Melnikov From: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: [lemonade] CATENATE draft Cc: Lemonade Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FORGED_MUA_EUDORA autolearn=no version=2.60 On 12/15/03 at 6:08 PM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >Pete Resnick wrote: > >>1. Selecting multiple mailboxes: At least a couple of server folks >>told me that doing random mailbox access was a real pain >>implementation-wise because it would involve effectively doing a >>SELECT on multiple mailboxes. This was considered bad. > >Once again, a server can check if an URL points to a mailbox which >is not currently open and fail the command. I think that's too late. >We can define a new capability, saying that the server only supports >catanating in the open mailbox (or vice versa: by default all server >must support catanating in the open mailbox only, but some servers >can support any mailboxes). *If* we do this, I prefer the latter, where the server can say, "I allow CATENATEs from unselected mailboxes". >>2. Which schemes are valid: How does the server indicate which URL >>schemes it allows? How can it further indicate that it only allows >>access to *this* server? > >IMAP CHANNEL extension is already dealing with a similar problem. I >don't remember syntax of the top of my head. So basically if we create capabilities (perhaps not even in this document) for "I can catenate from unselected mailboxes", "I can catenate from other IMAP servers", and "I can catenate schemes other than IMAP", and make the default be that you can only catenate message parts from the currently selected mailbox, this comes down to strictly a syntax change, assuming we make the below change on byte ranges: We use relative IMAP URL syntax instead of "seq-number section [partial]". >>3. IMAP URLs don't allow byte ranges. I think those could turn out >>to be terribly handy. > >IMHO, it is time to extend URL syntax for this anyway. I remember >some talks about revision IMAP URL document. Does anyone know who is dealing with this? Anybody else have input on this? pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 11:55:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27349 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:55:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYpoN-0006t8-7F for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:55:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNGtBrk026474 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:55:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYpoN-0006sv-26 for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:55:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27322 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:55:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYpoM-0005FM-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:55:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYpkO-00056X-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:51:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYpkO-00056P-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:51:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYpkL-0006jQ-2n; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:51:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYpkE-0006il-8T for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:50:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27175 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:50:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYpkD-000545-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:50:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYpjD-00053i-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:49:52 -0500 Received: from rufus.isode.com ([62.3.217.251]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYpjD-00052u-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:49:51 -0500 Received: from isode.com (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (with SMTP (internal)) with ESMTPA; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:52:24 +0000 Message-ID: <3FE871DA.1020803@isode.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:48:26 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Resnick CC: Lemonade Subject: Re: [lemonade] CATENATE draft References: <3FD33929.2010304@isode.com> <3FDDF8B9.3010906@isode.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pete Resnick wrote: > On 12/15/03 at 6:08 PM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > >> Pete Resnick wrote: >> >>> 1. Selecting multiple mailboxes: At least a couple of server folks >>> told me that doing random mailbox access was a real pain >>> implementation-wise because it would involve effectively doing a >>> SELECT on multiple mailboxes. This was considered bad. >> >> Once again, a server can check if an URL points to a mailbox which is >> not currently open and fail the command. > > I think that's too late. > >> We can define a new capability, saying that the server only supports >> catanating in the open mailbox (or vice versa: by default all server >> must support catanating in the open mailbox only, but some servers >> can support any mailboxes). > > > *If* we do this, I prefer the latter, where the server can say, "I > allow CATENATEs from unselected mailboxes". Sure. >>> 2. Which schemes are valid: How does the server indicate which URL >>> schemes it allows? How can it further indicate that it only allows >>> access to *this* server? >> >> IMAP CHANNEL extension is already dealing with a similar problem. I >> don't remember syntax of the top of my head. > > So basically if we create capabilities (perhaps not even in this > document) for "I can catenate from unselected mailboxes", "I can > catenate from other IMAP servers", and "I can catenate schemes other > than IMAP", and make the default be that you can only catenate message > parts from the currently selected mailbox, this comes down to strictly > a syntax change, assuming we make the below change on byte ranges: We > use relative IMAP URL syntax instead of "seq-number section [partial]". > >>> 3. IMAP URLs don't allow byte ranges. I think those could turn out >>> to be terribly handy. >> >> IMHO, it is time to extend URL syntax for this anyway. I remember >> some talks about revision IMAP URL document. > > Does anyone know who is dealing with this? I think Lyndon wanted to take this, but I am willing to do this as well. I just went through the IMAP URL text recently when I was doing HTTP AUTH URLs . > Anybody else have input on this? Alexey _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 12:51:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28700 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:51:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYqgL-0000eg-01 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:50:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNHouFE002517 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:50:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYqgK-0000eW-SV for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:50:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28651 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:50:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYqgJ-0006n5-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:50:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYqdU-0006m2-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:48:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYqdU-0006lz-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:48:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYqdU-0000Wk-DV; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:48:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYqcX-0000Uj-9B for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:47:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28550 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:46:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYqcU-0006iC-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:46:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYqYx-0006fI-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:43:20 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.157]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYqYx-0006c6-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:43:19 -0500 Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id hBNHgg422981 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:42:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:42:43 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Glenn Parsons" To: "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:42:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3C978.553D2F3C" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3C978.553D2F3C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Folks, I'd like to thank Pete & Randy for their timely document submissions. The end of year cheer has distracted me from keeping us on course. Notably, there was no call last week. So given the holidays and the current debate on the details of the new documents, let me suggest a new discussion thread to lead us to a decision to choose only one mechanism. To recap, we have the following documents: > IMAP push/pull comparison - author: Randy > draft-ietf-lemonade-submit-01 > - WG document for the chosen method and rationale > - additional details may be included here or in separate documents > > IMAP CATENATE - author: Pete > draft-ietf-lemonade-catenate-01 (new) - WG document as it is needed for push and pull > IMAP pull details > IMAP urlauth - authors: Chris & Mark > draft-crispin-imap-urlauth-04 > > IMAP BURL author: Chris > draft-newman-lemonade-compose-00 > > IMAP push details - author: Randy > draft-gellens-lemonade-imap-push-00 (new) > I will re-ask the questions I posed in Minneapolis: Do we now have sufficient technical documentation of the options to make a choice? I would suggest that we do. Let me know if you agree. Which mechanism (push or pull) do you think the WG should choose to advance? I encourage discussion on the list on this topic. If I do not see any convergence within a couple of weeks I will propose a focused conf call debate... :-) Cheers, Glenn. > ---------- > From: Parsons, Glenn [CAR:1A11:EXCH] > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 6:43 AM > To: IETF LEMONADE (E-mail) > Subject: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan > > Folks, > > This summary is to confirm what we decided on Monday at IETF 58 and allow > confirmation by the list. > > The consensus was that we want to choose one technical direction for the > forward without download requirement of the charter. However, the room > was not comfortable making the decision without more details on the > technical details of the push model. > > I suggested giving authors until this Monday, but the room was more > generous suggesting Dec 17th. Of course, authors can have documents > prepared early. I encourage discussion on the list as soon as the > documents are available. > > On Dec 18th, I propose to host a conference call to see if we have > consensus on push or pull. The outcome of this call will be summarized > for the list so that we can reach a consensus direction before the end of > the year. > > So specifically, the documents are: > > IMAP push/pull comparison - author: Randy > draft-ietf-lemonade-submit-01 > - will be updated by Dec 17th > - WG document for the chosen method and rationale > - additional details may be included here or in separate documents > > IMAP COMPOSE - author: Pete > draft-ietf-lemonade-compose > - will be created by Dec 17th > - WG document since used by IMAP push or pull method > > IMAP pull details > IMAP urlauth - authors: Chris & Mark > draft-crispin-imap-urlauth-04 > - will be updated by Dec 17th > > IMAP BURL > draft-newman-lemonade-compose-00 > - will be updated by Dec 17th > > IMAP push details - author: Randy > draft-gellens-lemonade-imap-push > - will be created by Dec 17th > > Cheers, > Glenn. > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3C978.553D2F3C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan

Folks,

I'd like to thank = Pete & Randy for their timely document submissions.

The end of year = cheer has distracted me from keeping us on course.  Notably, there = was no call last week.

So given the = holidays and the current debate on the details of the new documents, = let me suggest a new discussion thread to lead us to a decision to = choose only one mechanism.

To recap, we have = the following documents:

    IMAP push/pull = comparison - author: Randy
    draft-ietf-lemonade-submit-01
    =A0- WG document = for the chosen method and rationale
    =A0- additional = details may be included here or in separate documents

    IMAP CATENATE - author: Pete
    draft-ietf-lemonade-catenate-01  (new)
    - WG document as it = is needed for push and pull

    IMAP pull = details
    =A0=A0=A0 IMAP = urlauth - authors:=A0 Chris & Mark =
    =A0=A0=A0 = draft-crispin-imap-urlauth-04

    =A0=A0=A0 IMAP = BURL  author:=A0 Chris
    =A0=A0=A0 = draft-newman-lemonade-compose-00

    IMAP push details - = author: Randy
    draft-gellens-lemonade-imap-push-00   (new)

I will re-ask the = questions I posed in Minneapolis:

Do we now have = sufficient technical documentation of the options to make a = choice?
I would suggest = that we do.  Let me know if you agree.

Which mechanism = (push or pull) do you think the WG should choose to advance?

I encourage = discussion on the list on this topic.

If I do not see any = convergence within a couple of weeks I will propose a focused conf call = debate... :-)

Cheers,
Glenn.



    ----------
    From:   Parsons, Glenn [CAR:1A11:EXCH]
    Sent:   Saturday, November 15, 2003 6:43 AM
    To:     = IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)
    Subject: =        [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan

    Folks,

    This summary is to = confirm what we decided on Monday at IETF 58 and allow confirmation by = the list.

    The consensus was = that we want to choose one technical direction for the forward without = download requirement of the charter.=A0 However, the room was not = comfortable making the decision without more details on the technical = details of the push model.

    I suggested giving = authors until this Monday, but the room was more generous suggesting = Dec 17th.=A0 Of course, authors can have documents prepared early.=A0 I = encourage discussion on the list as soon as the documents are = available.

    On Dec 18th,=A0 I = propose to host a conference call to see if we have consensus on push = or pull.=A0 The outcome of this call will be summarized for the list so = that we can reach a consensus direction before the end of the = year.

    So specifically, the = documents are:

    IMAP push/pull = comparison - author: Randy
    draft-ietf-lemonade-submit-01
    =A0- will be = updated by Dec 17th
    =A0- WG document = for the chosen method and rationale
    =A0- additional = details may be included here or in separate documents

    IMAP COMPOSE - = author: Pete
    draft-ietf-lemonade-compose =
    =A0- will be = created by Dec 17th
    =A0- WG document = since used by IMAP push or pull method =

    IMAP pull = details
    =A0=A0=A0 IMAP = urlauth - authors:=A0 Chris & Mark =
    =A0=A0=A0 = draft-crispin-imap-urlauth-04
    =A0=A0=A0 - will be = updated by Dec 17th

    =A0=A0=A0 IMAP = BURL
    =A0=A0=A0 = draft-newman-lemonade-compose-00
    =A0=A0=A0 - will be = updated by Dec 17th

    IMAP push details - = author: Randy
    draft-gellens-lemonade-imap-push
    - will be created = by Dec 17th

    Cheers,
    Glenn.


------_=_NextPart_001_01C3C978.553D2F3C-- _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 14:40:03 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04451 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:40:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYsNU-0005V3-IT for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:39:36 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNJdaui021135 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:39:36 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYsNU-0005Uo-Ck for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:39:36 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04338 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:39:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYsNR-0007OJ-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:39:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYsLX-00076P-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:37:37 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYsJ9-0006e3-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:35:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYsJ4-0004zj-Bs; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:35:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYsJ0-0004yp-Q8 for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:34:59 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03546 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:34:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYsIy-0006bm-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:34:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYsG8-00064V-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:32:01 -0500 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYsDV-0005Xw-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:29:18 -0500 Received: from sabrina.qualcomm.com (sabrina.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.150]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBNJTFVY027525 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:29:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.46.227.161] (carbuncle.qualcomm.com [129.46.227.161]) by sabrina.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBNJTD0O026991; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:29:14 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hardie@mage.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:29:12 -0800 To: "Glenn Parsons" , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" From: Ted Hardie Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 12:42 PM -0500 12/23/2003, Glenn Parsons wrote >I will re-ask the questions I posed in Minneapolis: > >Do we now have sufficient technical documentation of the options to make a choice? >I would suggest that we do. Let me know if you agree. Speaking personally, I believe we have sufficient technical documentation to make the choice. >Which mechanism (push or pull) do you think the WG should choose to advance? Again, speaking personally, I believe the working group should advance based on the "IMAP Push" choice. I think Randy's work is a good start for this; I'd encourage some simplifications, but I think it is a realistic demonstration that this can be done. >I encourage discussion on the list on this topic. There are three key areas where I think the push model is a better fit than the pull: security, deployment complexity, and code complexity. Mark and Chris have done an admirable job in developing the "pawn ticket" authorization scheme, but it is very important to see how pawn tickets fit into the larger architecture. Though we call it "IMAP Pull", the reality is that the pull model is actually "SMTP/submit server pull" in that it is the SMTP or Submit server which must pull together the pieces to send the email. For the overall architecture to have both authentication and authorization, the pull model must actually use some form of submission in which the sender is authenticated to the SMTP/submit server. Though this is growing, individually authenticated submission is still not the norm (IP-based allow lists seem to be) and those that seem to be seen are of the pop-before-smtp type that limit deployment in other ways. While I can see the value of a split authentication/authorization model, I am quite concerned about a model that will have no authentication at all in the common case. It is possible, of course, that we can make use of an authentication mechanism in the submit server a basic requirement of this protocol. This adds, however, to the deployment hurdle we must overcome. As it stands, the historical tendency of IMAP development to put complexity into the client rather than the server means that the newly capable "SMTP/Submit Pull" servers will have to implement a fair amount of code to act as IMAP clients. They will also have to implement the code required to handle pawn tickets, as well as their own form of authentication. That's a pretty major piece of work, and I don't think we can really expect to see it in the everyday SMTP/Submit servers right away; it will be in specialty code for some time to come. That's probably going to keep less capable clients using pre-configured SMTP/submit servers, rather than discovering and using the local servers (unless, of course, we give up on authentication or a more global authentication mechanism is available). Some folks might well see the restriction to specific SMTP/submit servers as a benefit; indeed, there are several proposals to publish specific servers as permitted senders for specific domains with the strong implication that other senders should not be permitted. That kills several other capabilities in the course of fighting joe-jobs, but it is getting to be a popular sentiment. One issue we have to face, though, is that those proposals and other spam-driven changes to the SMTP environment have not yet been standardized. Making the locus of change for our work the SMTP/submit servers means we are either at the mercy of or constraining other work related to spam abatement, internationalization, etc. Without very careful coordination, we could end up with a protocol that will see little or no deployment, and I don't think any of us wants to waste our time. For me, the IMAP push model is much simpler to work with. The user is authenticated to the IMAP server and authorized to work with the stored objects from the beginning; adding the new template objects and concatenation capabilities seems relatively straightforward. The submit-capable IMAP server is not usually mobile, unlike some of the clients, so it can more easily be configured with authentication tokens appropriate for connecting to local SMTP servers; a co-resident SMTP server would also be possible and relatively easily configured. Mark and Chris have rightly pointed out the danger of presuming that an SMTP server would be co-resident, but even in the case where they are not, the addition of SMTP client functionality to an IMAP server seems to me far easier than the addition of IMAP client functionality to an SMTP/Submit server. Once again, speaking personally, regards, Ted Hardie >If I do not see any convergence within a couple of weeks I will propose a focused conf call debate... :-) > >Cheers, >Glenn. > > > >---------- >From: Parsons, Glenn [CAR:1A11:EXCH] >Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 6:43 AM >To: IETF LEMONADE (E-mail) >Subject: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan > >Folks, > >This summary is to confirm what we decided on Monday at IETF 58 and allow confirmation by the list. > >The consensus was that we want to choose one technical direction for the forward without download requirement of the charter. However, the room was not comfortable making the decision without more details on the technical details of the push model. > >I suggested giving authors until this Monday, but the room was more generous suggesting Dec 17th. Of course, authors can have documents prepared early. I encourage discussion on the list as soon as the documents are available. > >On Dec 18th, I propose to host a conference call to see if we have consensus on push or pull. The outcome of this call will be summarized for the list so that we can reach a consensus direction before the end of the year. > >So specifically, the documents are: > >IMAP push/pull comparison - author: Randy >draft-ietf-lemonade-submit-01 > - will be updated by Dec 17th > - WG document for the chosen method and rationale > - additional details may be included here or in separate documents > >IMAP COMPOSE - author: Pete >draft-ietf-lemonade-compose > - will be created by Dec 17th > - WG document since used by IMAP push or pull method > >IMAP pull details > IMAP urlauth - authors: Chris & Mark > draft-crispin-imap-urlauth-04 > - will be updated by Dec 17th > > IMAP BURL > draft-newman-lemonade-compose-00 > - will be updated by Dec 17th > >IMAP push details - author: Randy >draft-gellens-lemonade-imap-push >- will be created by Dec 17th > >Cheers, >Glenn. _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 18:58:16 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20498 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:58:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYwPP-0007Sj-7r for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:57:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNNvphk028684 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:57:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYwPP-0007SZ-3W for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:57:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20487 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:57:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwPL-0005hQ-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:57:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwNZ-0005er-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:55:58 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwMh-0005be-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:55:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYwMi-0007Gm-1t; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:55:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYwLp-0007FB-8z for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:54:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20381 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:54:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwLm-0005af-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:54:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwKK-0005Uf-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:52:37 -0500 Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwJ4-0005JS-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:51:18 -0500 Received: from magus.qualcomm.com (magus.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.148]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBNNpF4t004082 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:51:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.46.74.63] (loud.qualcomm.com [129.46.74.63]) by magus.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBNNpBFB023122; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:51:12 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X v6.1a Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:49:42 -0800 To: Ted Hardie , Randall Gellens , lemonade@ietf.org From: Randall Gellens Subject: Re: [lemonade] IMAP Push Draft Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b26 Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 At 1:53 PM -0800 12/10/03, Ted Hardie wrote: > the most common use of this will be someone getting a message > to mailbox1 (say, on a cell phone) and wanting it on a different server > (say, their enterprise server). No composition really, just a redirection. > If that is going to be the common case, then having an algorithm for > defaults for some of these might be very useful, as it would allow simple > clients to use the "bounce" version of this without having to use annotations > (much or at all). Not that this would be the only way it would > work (obviously, > the forward-with-comments and compose mechanisms have great utility), > just that a profile of this that is that simple might be a good idea. Is your suggestion that the server, by default, create the envelope from the headers? So if mail-to isn't specified, use To/Cc headers, and if mail-from isn't specified, use the From header? I like the idea of making things simple, but I am concerned about encouraging a usage model that may lead to accidental disclosure of bcc recipients or other information. Perhaps a strict prohibition on Bcc headers may help. That is, if the spec clearly says that Bcc headers are not processed into rcpt-to commands we may be able to avoid the problem. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly-selected tag: --------------- Stolen Painting Found by Tree --Newspaper headline _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 18:58:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20510 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:58:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYwPP-0007T6-PW for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:57:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNNvpK9028702 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:57:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYwPP-0007Sr-LE for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:57:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20490 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:57:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwPM-0005hV-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:57:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwNa-0005ez-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:55:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwMh-0005bf-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:55:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYwMi-0007Gv-9s; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:55:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYwLp-0007FG-OI for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:54:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20384 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:54:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwLm-0005ak-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:54:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwKL-0005Un-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:52:38 -0500 Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwJ6-0005JU-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:51:20 -0500 Received: from magus.qualcomm.com (magus.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.148]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBNNpG4t004086; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:51:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.46.74.63] (loud.qualcomm.com [129.46.74.63]) by magus.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBNNpBFD023122; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:51:14 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <2147483647.1071223214@115.216-123-230-0.interbaun.com> X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X v6.1a Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:51:04 -0800 To: Rob Siemborski , Lyndon Nerenberg From: Randall Gellens Subject: Re: [lemonade] IMAP Push Draft Cc: lemonade@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b26 Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 At 12:03 PM -0500 12/12/03, Rob Siemborski wrote: > The current draft doesn't retun the sequence numbers, but yes, that would > fix the problem. > > I think EXPUNGE would need to be blocked while SUBMIT is in progress > anyway. Both sound useful: return sequence number or UID (depending on SUBMIT versus UID SUBMIT) and block EXPUNGE between receipt of SUBMIT and return of response. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly-selected tag: --------------- There was a young poet named Dan, Whose poetry never would scan. When told this was so, He said, "Yes, I know. It's because I try to put every possible syllable into that last line t _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 19:20:11 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21096 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:20:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYwkZ-00089N-Sz for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:19:44 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBO0JhQK031323 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:19:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYwkZ-000898-P2 for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:19:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21076 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:19:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwkY-0006Np-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:19:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwij-0006LP-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:17:49 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwh0-0006J2-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:16:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYwh0-00083o-OA; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:16:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYwgh-00082z-5d for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:15:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20992 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:15:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwgf-0006Gk-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:15:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwes-0006EN-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:13:51 -0500 Received: from mxout5.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.32.135]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYwdX-0006BN-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:12:27 -0500 Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.32.139]) by mxout5.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBO0CQK4014083; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:12:27 -0800 Received: from Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (tomobiki-cho.cac.washington.edu [128.95.135.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBO0CQba031324 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:12:26 -0800 Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:10:23 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) From: Mark Crispin To: Glenn Parsons cc: "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 It is premature to make a choice between push and pull. The -05 version of the URLAUTH document has substantial updates, but I had been waiting on Chris to review it before sending it to the ID repository. This appears to have been a mistake, so I have just sent it. I don't know where Chris is on updating the BURL document. Finally, we are missing a document containing Pull details corresponding to Randy Gellens' document about Push details. The URLAUTH and BURL documents describe mechanisms, but not how these mechanisms would actually be used. I guess that I should take on writing such a document. -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 19:52:11 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22115 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:52:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYxFW-0000hw-LZ for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:51:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBO0pgR5002714 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:51:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYxFW-0000hh-Fx for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:51:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22098 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:51:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYxFU-0007Wc-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:51:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYxDc-0007VR-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:49:45 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYxBw-0007Tq-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:48:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYxBw-0000cF-Vq; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:48:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYxBn-0000bd-7t for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:47:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22016 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:47:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYxBl-0007T2-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:47:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYx9p-0007Qb-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:45:49 -0500 Received: from mxout1.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.32.134]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYx9F-0007OF-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:45:13 -0500 Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.32.139]) by mxout1.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBO0jBP3026645; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:45:12 -0800 Received: from Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (tomobiki-cho.cac.washington.edu [128.95.135.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBO0jBba000640 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:45:11 -0800 Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:43:08 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) From: Mark Crispin To: Ted Hardie cc: Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Ted Hardie wrote: > There are three key areas where I think the push model is a better fit > than the pull: security, deployment complexity, and code complexity. Needless to say, I disagree on all three points. The claim that "individually authenticated submission is not the norm" is startling, given the widespread deployment of mandatory SMTP SASL authentication systems at major service providers. Similarly, the claim that the pull model "will have no authentication at all in the common case" is patently untrue. This perhaps indicates that there needs to be a pull details document to correspond with Randy's push details document. Push has an "attractive nuisance" aspect in that it looks simple at first glance, but actually holds substantial IMAP protocol and deployment complexity in the form of the CATENATE [??Why is it a draft-ietf-lemonade I-D instead of a author document like the others??] and SUBMIT commands. Although a complex command by nature of its somewhat bizarre syntax, CATENATE is limited to the selected mailbox, and its grammar precludes extensibility. SUBMIT implies considerable glue between IMAP and SMTP, which for all its translation still winds up on the client. For example, note the untagged SUBMIT response that returns SMTP commands and responses. It also lacks support for SMTP service extensions (although it requires DSN), meaning that if a service extension is needed the client is out of luck. Both commands betray "do the minimum to address the task at hand" and "put all the complexity in the IMAP server" thinking. If Lemonade takes the deceptively easy path now, we are likely to end up in a Lemonade Extensions working group to fix the inadequacies in CATENATE and SUBMIT. -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 22:14:12 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25188 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:14:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYzT0-0004rK-4Y for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:13:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBO3DkCJ018672 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:13:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYzT0-0004r5-0H for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:13:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25173 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:13:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYzSw-00037N-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:13:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYzR5-00034U-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:11:48 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYzPN-00032f-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:10:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYzPO-0004nR-S3; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:10:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYzP5-0004mb-2y for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:09:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25070 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:09:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYzP2-00030Z-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:09:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYzN5-0002yJ-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:07:40 -0500 Received: from 216-43-25-66.ip.mcleodusa.net ([216.43.25.66] helo=episteme-software.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYzLB-0002vO-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:05:41 -0500 Received: from [10.0.2.4] (10.0.2.4) by episteme-software.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.3b3); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:05:06 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 6.1a7] Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:05:04 -0600 To: Mark Crispin From: Pete Resnick Cc: "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [lemonade] Re: CATENATE issues (Was: IMAP push/pull plan) Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FORGED_MUA_EUDORA autolearn=no version=2.60 On 12/23/03 at 4:43 PM -0800, Mark Crispin wrote: >CATENATE [??Why is it a draft-ietf-lemonade I-D instead of a author >document like the others??] I was asked to do this draft as LEMONADE working group work in the context of a LEMONADE work item. It seemed logical to submit it as a draft-ietf-lemonade-* item. The more interesting question to me is, why aren't BURL and URLAUTH marked as working group drafts and appearing on the working group page. Glenn, you should really fix that. (Of course, the name of the draft is not meaningful, though there are probably some people out there who think that because something has a "draft-ietf-*" name means it is somehow "special". If that's a worry, when Glenn asks the secretariat to mark them as working group drafts, he could also update the name.) >Although a complex command by nature of its somewhat bizarre syntax, Thanks, Mark. I always appreciate your pleasant comments. >CATENATE is limited to the selected mailbox, and its grammar >precludes extensibility. Alexey has suggested that I change the syntax to use the IMAP URL syntax. That would open up the syntax for extensibility. You haven't commented on that thread (I've asked twice for other folks aside from Alexey to give feedback), but I take it from this comment that you concur with Alexey. Please do followup to confirm, but I plan to update the draft to reflect IMAP URL syntax, and will also follow up with Lyndon regarding updates to IMAP URL to include partials. pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 22:40:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25637 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:40:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYzsI-0005Ww-4X for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:39:54 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBO3dsPT021252 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:39:54 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYzsH-0005Wh-VF for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:39:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25615 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:39:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYzsE-0003dM-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:39:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYzqO-0003a5-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:37:57 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYzoW-0003WZ-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:36:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYzoY-00059V-4W; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:36:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYzoF-00058O-BX for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:35:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25502 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:35:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYzoB-0003Tk-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:35:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYzmF-0003Rs-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:33:40 -0500 Received: from mxout2.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.33.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYzkM-0003R2-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:31:42 -0500 Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.33.9]) by mxout2.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBO3Vf4l002677; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:31:41 -0800 Received: from Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM (mes128085095.airdata.net [166.128.85.95]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBO3VMvo021057 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:31:37 -0800 Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:31:13 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) From: Mark Crispin To: Pete Resnick cc: "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [lemonade] Re: CATENATE issues (Was: IMAP push/pull plan) Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Pete Resnick wrote: > > Although a complex command by nature of its somewhat bizarre syntax, > Thanks, Mark. I always appreciate your pleasant comments. The CATENATE syntax for a message body part *is* bizarre, although you may not have intended it to be that way. If you did intend "5[1.3]" as a means of identifying message content, then I respectfully suggest that in the name of saving a few bytes in a command, you have created a syntactically ugly and non-extensible mess. Better would be "5 BODY[1.3]" or some sort of tagged structure such as "(FETCH 5 BODY[1.3])". An example of why is RFC 3516. > Alexey has suggested that I change the syntax to use the IMAP URL syntax. That > would open up the syntax for extensibility. You haven't commented on that > thread There is little need to comment on an obvious need, especially as you had already said you were going to do it. -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 28 17:04:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21143 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:04:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aaj0w-0008U8-E8 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:03:58 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBSM3wX7032615 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:03:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aaj0w-0008Ty-9s for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:03:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21096 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:03:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aaj0u-0003Iu-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:03:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AaizR-0003DW-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:02:25 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaixZ-000352-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:00:29 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aaix9-0008Gh-9K; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:00:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aaiww-0008FP-7B for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:59:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20852 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:59:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aaiwt-00032B-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:59:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AaiuB-0002vW-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:56:59 -0500 Received: from 216-43-25-66.ip.mcleodusa.net ([216.43.25.66] helo=episteme-software.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aaiq6-0002on-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:52:46 -0500 Received: from [10.0.2.4] (216.43.25.67) by episteme-software.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.3b3) for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:51:45 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 6.1a7] Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:51:42 -0600 To: "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" From: Pete Resnick Subject: [lemonade] Re: CATENATE issues (Was: IMAP push/pull plan) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FORGED_MUA_EUDORA autolearn=no version=2.60 On 12/23/03 at 7:31 PM -0800, Mark Crispin wrote: >>Alexey has suggested that I change the syntax to use the IMAP URL >>syntax. That would open up the syntax for extensibility. You >>haven't commented on that thread > >There is little need to comment on an obvious need, especially as >you had already said you were going to do it. Actually, I had solicited more input before changing it, but if I read you correctly, you think the IMAP URL syntax will be fine. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Given that, which of the following should CATENATE specify? 1. [uidvalidity] iuid [isection] from RFC 2192, leaving all future extensibility to future extension documents. 2. The full imapurl syntax from RFC 2192 with a limitation in the text that says, "This document only talks about how to deal with messages in the currently selected mailbox and anything else should be expected to return NO". 3. The general URL syntax from RFC 2396 or 2196bis with a similar limitation in the text as above. 4. Some other set of limitations on one of the above. pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 28 21:46:16 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28994 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:46:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AanPg-0007Mx-7y for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:45:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBT2jmRT028323 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:45:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AanPg-0007Mk-3T for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:45:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28985 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:45:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AanPd-0003Lj-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:45:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AanNr-0003JD-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:43:55 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AanLz-0003Fu-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:41:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AanM0-0007JC-Hp; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:42:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AanLj-0007IV-Fr for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:41:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28839 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:41:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AanLg-0003CO-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:41:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AanJu-0003AB-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:39:50 -0500 Received: from mxout3.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.32.166]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AanI4-00037b-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:37:56 -0500 Received: from shiva1.cac.washington.edu (shiva1.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.201]) by mxout3.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBT2btsr018525; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:37:55 -0800 Received: from localhost (mrc@localhost) by shiva1.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBT2btxw024792; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:37:55 -0800 Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:37:55 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Crispin To: Pete Resnick cc: "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: Re: [lemonade] Re: CATENATE issues (Was: IMAP push/pull plan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Pete Resnick wrote: > 2. The full imapurl syntax from RFC 2192 with a limitation in the text that > says, "This document only talks about how to deal with messages in the > currently selected mailbox and anything else should be expected to return NO". Some form of this option, preferably paralleling what URLAUTH stipulates. -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 28 22:06:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29479 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:06:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aanj5-0007i3-DP for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:05:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBT35p8O029629 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:05:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aanj5-0007ho-98 for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:05:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29443 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:05:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aanj0-0003u9-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:05:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AanhD-0003pv-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:03:56 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AanfL-0003lJ-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:01:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AanfN-0007e1-AP; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aanf6-0007d6-WC for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:01:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29300 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:01:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aanf3-0003i6-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:01:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AandS-0003d7-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:00:03 -0500 Received: from 216-43-25-66.ip.mcleodusa.net ([216.43.25.66] helo=episteme-software.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aanap-0003XP-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:57:20 -0500 Received: from [10.0.2.4] (216.43.25.67) by episteme-software.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.3b3); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:56:25 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 6.1a7] Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:56:22 -0600 To: Mark Crispin From: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: [lemonade] Re: CATENATE issues (Was: IMAP push/pull plan) Cc: "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FORGED_MUA_EUDORA autolearn=no version=2.60 On 12/28/03 at 6:37 PM -0800, Mark Crispin wrote: >On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Pete Resnick wrote: >>2. The full imapurl syntax from RFC 2192 with a limitation in the >>text that says, "This document only talks about how to deal with >>messages in the currently selected mailbox and anything else should >>be expected to return NO". > >Some form of this option, preferably paralleling what URLAUTH stipulates. URLAUTH stipulates that (for example) the URLs given to URLFETCH are valid even for mailboxes which are not selected, or even if no mailbox is selected. Is your suggestion that CATENATE should also allow for this use case? (I know at least someone indicated to me offline that this would be objectionable to them, but I'm just trying to clarify what you mean.) pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 28 22:30:12 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00091 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:30:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aao6D-0008Lr-A2 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:29:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBT3TjN4032097 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:29:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aao6D-0008Lc-4w for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:29:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00079 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:29:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aao69-0004YY-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:29:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aao4F-0004X5-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:27:44 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aao2b-0004Vw-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:26:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aao2c-0008H4-D3; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:26:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aao2K-0008GX-Uf for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:25:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00038 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:25:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aao2H-0004V2-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:25:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aao0N-0004Tt-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:23:43 -0500 Received: from mxout1.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.32.134]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aanz1-0004Sn-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:22:19 -0500 Received: from shiva1.cac.washington.edu (shiva1.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.201]) by mxout1.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBT3MIP3017457; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:22:18 -0800 Received: from localhost (mrc@localhost) by shiva1.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBT3MIRN025639; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:22:18 -0800 Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:22:18 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Crispin To: Pete Resnick cc: "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: Re: [lemonade] Re: CATENATE issues (Was: IMAP push/pull plan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Pete Resnick wrote: > URLAUTH stipulates that (for example) the URLs given to URLFETCH are valid > even for mailboxes which are not selected, or even if no mailbox is selected. > Is your suggestion that CATENATE should also allow for this use case? (I know > at least someone indicated to me offline that this would be objectionable to > them, but I'm just trying to clarify what you mean.) I would consider CATENATE objectionable if it did not allow for this use case. CATENATE already has severe limitations that are intrinsic in its design. But this isn't a design limitation that you're talking about; instead, it's an additional restriction that serves no apparent purpose. It may make life easier for a server implementor, but it does not assist a client implementor in any way. The CATENATE specification should allow any type of URL, not just IMAP URLs. Whether a particular server chooses to accept a particular URL is a matter for its implementation to decide. This probably means that you need to define some response codes to indicate server unwillingness to deal with particular URLs. -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 29 11:22:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03349 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:22:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab09T-0007SM-Ue for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:21:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBTGLtsv028659 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:21:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab09T-0007S8-0u for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:21:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03332 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:21:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab09S-0003FS-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:21:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab07X-0003C9-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:19:55 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab05i-00035f-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:18:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab05g-0007Kb-5D; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:18:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZ1DR-0007kf-Oi for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:05:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA27696 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:05:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ1DP-000664-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:05:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ1Bc-00064K-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:03:57 -0500 Received: from lin1.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.6.59]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ1Ad-00061S-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:02:55 -0500 Received: from SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu (SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.122.8]) (user=rjs3 mech=GSSAPI (0 bits)) by lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBO52ul4002575; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:02:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:02:56 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Siemborski To: Randall Gellens cc: Lyndon Nerenberg , lemonade@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lemonade] IMAP Push Draft In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <2147483647.1071223214@115.216-123-230-0.interbaun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Randall Gellens wrote: > > The current draft doesn't retun the sequence numbers, but yes, that would > > fix the problem. > > > > I think EXPUNGE would need to be blocked while SUBMIT is in progress > > anyway. > > Both sound useful: return sequence number or UID (depending on SUBMIT > versus UID SUBMIT) and block EXPUNGE between receipt of SUBMIT and > return of response. I would expect this to work similar to FETCH (you always get a sequence number as the argument to the FETCH response, though UID FETCH commands also return a UID). If we sometimes return UID and sometimes return sequence number, we need to be clear on which is being returned. I think that always using the sequence number is probably fine. -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++ E W+ N(-) o? K- w-- O- M-- V-- PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ X- R@ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++ h+ r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 29 18:14:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17382 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:14:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab6aN-0005Cl-MM for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:14:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBTNE7HR020003 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:14:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab6aN-0005CY-CA for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:14:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17337 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:14:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab6aK-0001l2-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:14:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab6YX-0001jh-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:12:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab6XR-0001h4-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:11:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab6XO-00059d-I3; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:11:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab6Wd-00058W-3P for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:10:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16939 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:10:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab6Wa-0001eM-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:10:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab6Uf-0001YJ-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:08:13 -0500 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab6Tp-0001OL-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:07:21 -0500 Received: from neophyte.qualcomm.com (neophyte.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.149]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBTN6qVY011143 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:06:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.46.227.161] (carbuncle.qualcomm.com [129.46.227.161]) by neophyte.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBTN6oU0017027; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:06:50 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hardie@mage.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:06:51 -0800 To: Mark Crispin From: Ted Hardie Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan Cc: Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Several aspects of Mark's message below make me agree that having an explicit draft on the pull model (rather than the description in Randy's draft) would be a good thing. I am also concerned, though, that the we make forward progress on this as soon as possible, and I encourage Mark (who seems to have volunteered to write the draft) and the chairs to set the date for that draft as early as possible. Other comments in line. At 4:43 PM -0800 12/23/2003, Mark Crispin wrote: >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Ted Hardie wrote: >> There are three key areas where I think the push model is a better fit >> than the pull: security, deployment complexity, and code complexity. > >Needless to say, I disagree on all three points. > >The claim that "individually authenticated submission is not the norm" is >startling, given the widespread deployment of mandatory SMTP SASL >authentication systems at major service providers. I am glad to hear that this is more common than I thought, and I know I (and possibly the working group) would be happy to have more data on the deployment. In particular, what's your sense of the penetration of these into enterprise systems? >Similarly, the claim that the pull model "will have no authentication at >all in the common case" is patently untrue. This perhaps indicates that >there needs to be a pull details document to correspond with Randy's push >details document. Details on how it can are certainly welcome, and data indicating that the authentication is likely to be used are also welcome. We need to be clear, of course, that these are two different pieces of information. >Push has an "attractive nuisance" aspect in that it looks simple at first >glance, but actually holds substantial IMAP protocol and deployment >complexity in the form of the CATENATE [??Why is it a draft-ietf-lemonade >I-D instead of a author document like the others??] and SUBMIT commands. The key question for me isn't "is there protocol complexity" in IMAP push, but whether the protocol complexity is appropriate to the added functionality and, in particular, whether the functionality is being added in the right place in the overall architecture. I am not under the illusion that IMAP Push will be simple; I am trying to understand where the protocol functionality belongs. We disagree about that, at this point, and it sounds as if your upcoming draft will cover why you believe it belongs in Submit/SMTP servers rather than IMAP servers. > >SUBMIT implies considerable glue between IMAP and SMTP, which for all its >translation still winds up on the client. I'm not sure what you mean by "translation" here. SUBMIT does imply a connection between an IMAP server and an SMPT/Submit server, and the annotation mechanism Randy has proposed does involve work by the client (as do the simpler "template" mechanisms we've discussed in the past). I don't think there's much dispute about that. From a client's perspective, one key question is how similar this work is to existing tasks, and I personally believe that they are or can be close to typical MUA/IMAP client tasks (again, I believe that Randy's draft could be a bit simpler, but that it demonstrates the fundamentals of the approach). > >Both commands betray "do the minimum to address the task at hand" and "put >all the complexity in the IMAP server" thinking. "put all the complexity in the IMAP server" seems to be a pretty dramatic description. Putting the functionality in the IMAP server for this task would be closer to my personal view. >If Lemonade takes the deceptively easy path now, we are likely to end up >in a Lemonade Extensions working group to fix the inadequacies in CATENATE >and SUBMIT. Help getting them correct now would be useful, then, as a way of avoiding that later task, right? And while we're talking about the dangers of the easy path, I'd like to point out the danger in the Pull model: that Pull-based composition at the SMTP/Submit server seems likely to degenerate into Pulls from HTTP (or POP) document stores instead of IMAP stores. I can easily imagine folks deciding that they wanted to reuse HTTP for this document retrieval task (possibly with the "pawn ticket" mechanism), thus losing the end user the other advantages of working with IMAP. The dangers of this attractive nuisance vs. the dangers of adding functionality to IMAP servers for this task are, of course, a matter for further discussion. I look forward to reading the drafts in which the Pull model is clarified, and it may be this danger will not seem so likely in its light. But at the moment it seems far more problematic to me. regards, Ted Hardie > >-- 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 >lemonade@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 03:40:52 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA15388 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:40:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbFQM-0006qE-U1 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:40:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBU8eMdK026295 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:40:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbFQM-0006q2-KF for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:40:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA15382 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:40:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbFQK-0005WK-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:40:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbFOK-0005Ue-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:38:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbFNB-0005Sz-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:37:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbFN9-0006UQ-3S; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:37:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbFMN-0006TR-FH for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:36:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA15344 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:36:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbFMK-0005Rc-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:36:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbFKT-0005Q9-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:34:18 -0500 Received: from mxout6.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.33.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbFJi-0005Nt-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:33:30 -0500 Received: from shiva1.cac.washington.edu (shiva1.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.201]) by mxout6.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBU8XTlo022985; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 00:33:30 -0800 Received: from localhost (mrc@localhost) by shiva1.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBU8XT6f012581; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 00:33:29 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 00:33:29 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Crispin To: Ted Hardie cc: Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Ted Hardie wrote: > And while we're talking about the dangers of the easy path, I'd like to point > out the danger in the Pull model: that Pull-based composition at the SMTP/Submit > server seems likely to degenerate into Pulls from HTTP (or POP) document stores instead > of IMAP stores. I can easily imagine folks deciding that they wanted to reuse > HTTP for this document retrieval task (possibly with the "pawn ticket" mechanism), > thus losing the end user the other advantages of working with IMAP. I don't see this as a danger, particularly not with "in addtion to" rather than "instead of". One danger I see with the push model is that sooner or later, people will want to use the other stores and then will want commands to push to the IMAP server requests that will have it pull from HTTP, POP, and NNTP servers. That way lies madness. -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 13:10:55 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01824 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:10:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbOK4-0007s2-7P for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:10:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUIASlF030248 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:10:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbOK4-0007rn-2i for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:10:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01800 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:10:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbOK2-0000x8-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:10:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbOID-0000tY-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:08:34 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbOGj-0000qa-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:07:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbOGi-0007Py-CN; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:07:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbOG9-0007PG-Te for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:06:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01726 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:06:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbOG7-0000oT-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:06:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbOEP-0000ml-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:04:38 -0500 Received: from mxout2.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.33.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbODk-0000jB-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:03:56 -0500 Received: from shiva1.cac.washington.edu (shiva1.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.201]) by mxout2.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBUI3q4l022026; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:03:52 -0800 Received: from localhost (mrc@localhost) by shiva1.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBUI3pni030397; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:03:51 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:03:51 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Crispin To: Rob Siemborski cc: Ted Hardie , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Rob Siemborski wrote: > My personal largest fear about IMAP push is similar -- that once we extend > IMAP to support submission, we will decide that there is a need to extend > more and more protocols (POP, NNTP, HTTP being obvious ones) with slightly > different mail submission mechanisms, as we discover needs to source > messages from these stores (in the absence of an IMAP server). I also agree with this; in fact, this is one of the two basic reasons for opposing IMAP push that underlies all other reasons. The other basic reason is the prospect of having to track all future developments in SMTP in IMAP push. I note that the current IMAP submit document pays little heed to SMTP extensions, and apparently expects that by doing so IMAP submit will never have to consider SMTP extensions. I do not believe that to be a viable position. -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 14:36:57 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04913 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:36:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbPfJ-0001rK-2V for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:36:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUJaTBI007146 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:36:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbPfI-0001rA-R0 for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:36:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04896 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:36:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPfG-0004md-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:36:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPdU-0004kN-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:34:37 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPbx-0004hF-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:33:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbPby-0001lh-1u; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:33:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbPbT-0001jp-6Q for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:32:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04731 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:32:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPbQ-0004fY-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:32:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPZg-0004ce-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:30:41 -0500 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPYt-0004YL-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:29:51 -0500 Received: from neophyte.qualcomm.com (neophyte.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.149]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBUJTkVY016414 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:29:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.46.227.161] (carbuncle.qualcomm.com [129.46.227.161]) by neophyte.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBUJThU0023430; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:29:44 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hardie@mage.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:29:42 -0800 To: Mark Crispin , Rob Siemborski From: Ted Hardie Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan Cc: Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 10:03 AM -0800 12/30/2003, Mark Crispin wrote: >On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Rob Siemborski wrote: >> My personal largest fear about IMAP push is similar -- that once we extend >> IMAP to support submission, we will decide that there is a need to extend >> more and more protocols (POP, NNTP, HTTP being obvious ones) with slightly >> different mail submission mechanisms, as we discover needs to source > > messages from these stores (in the absence of an IMAP server). There is a critical distinction here--are we sourcing *messages* from these stores or are we sourcing *content* to be included in messages from these stores? I think for the PUSH architecture, we're talking about messages, and I think that makes it relatively easy to limit the desire to extend PUSH. I don't see much temptation to treat general purpose object stores as the source of submits in that case, and I think it is relatively easy to explain why using them as sources generates complexity for the overall architecture (especially as regards checking message syntax). I agree that there may be later work considered to extend an existing message storage and retrieval protocol like POP along the same lines. That's part of a general problem in having two different protocols in the same space, and not something we can fix by fiat. We can, of course, try to make sure that the message submission mechanisms developed for one can be aligned for those that work for the other. Since both need to be aligned with that for SMTP, there is already a reason to make sure that happens. I personally believe that this work would be out of scope for the working group at this time, but it is important to acknowledge it could happen. One of my presumptions about PULL has been that what could be PULLed could be content to include in messages (e.g. specific body parts for a mime multi-part or attachments) rather than only complete messages. I think that heading down that road means that you are almost guaranteed to end up in the kind of forest of extensions that loses interoperability. It's too easy for specific servers to support some access protocols and others to support others. I can tell you from reading a lot of specs that saying "any dereferencable URI may be included here" is a great temptation, because I see people succumb to that temptation a lot. It doesn't work on ground, though, as there are too many schemes that work only in certain environments and too many for which the retrieval mechanisms are fundamentally at odds with the protocol characteristics for the protocol that attempts to incorporate them by reference. If we are working from the presumption that only a complete message could be PULLed (as Pete has suggested), this risk goes down, but you still get the added complexity of validating that what the access protocol provided is a valid message. >I also agree with this; in fact, this is one of the two basic reasons for >opposing IMAP push that underlies all other reasons. > >The other basic reason is the prospect of having to track all future >developments in SMTP in IMAP push. I note that the current IMAP submit >document pays little heed to SMTP extensions, and apparently expects that >by doing so IMAP submit will never have to consider SMTP extensions. I do >not believe that to be a viable position. I don't agree that it is "all future development in SMTP", but this is nonetheless a very important concern. One approach, which I believe Pete intended, is to make the IMAP portion of this as slim as possible; this helps, but doesn't eliminate the problem entirely. I note, though, that the same problem occurs for PULL; it can force SMTP development to track salient developments in the access protocols for PULL, which would include at least those in IMAP. No matter which connection we make, we are talking about entanglement here, and we need to go into that with our eyes open. As ever, speaking personally, regards, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 14:56:59 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05330 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:56:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbPyh-0002ZJ-Cn for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:56:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUJuV5h009874 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:56:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbPyh-0002Z8-4J for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:56:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05311 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:56:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPye-0005Xv-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:56:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPwp-0005VJ-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:54:36 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPvg-0005Ru-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:53:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbPti-0002Ns-Ud; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:51:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbPsp-0002Me-Vy for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:50:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05180 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:50:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPsk-0005IR-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:50:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPqy-0005EA-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:48:32 -0500 Received: from 115.216-123-230-0.interbaun.com ([216.123.230.115] helo=peregrin.orthanc.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPpb-00059z-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:47:07 -0500 Received: from 115.216-123-230-0.interbaun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by peregrin.orthanc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C815353B; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:46:42 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:46:40 -0700 From: Lyndon Nerenberg To: Alexey Melnikov Cc: Lemonade Subject: Re: [lemonade] CATENATE draft Message-ID: <2147483647.1072788400@115.216-123-230-0.interbaun.com> In-Reply-To: <3FE871DA.1020803@isode.com> References: <3FD33929.2010304@isode.com> <3FDDF8B9.3010906@isode.com> <3FE871DA.1020803@isode.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>> 3. IMAP URLs don't allow byte ranges. I think those could turn out >>>> to be terribly handy. >>> >>> IMHO, it is time to extend URL syntax for this anyway. I remember >>> some talks about revision IMAP URL document. >> >> Does anyone know who is dealing with this? > > I think Lyndon wanted to take this, I did? I nominate someone else -- I'm way too far behind on my other drafts to take on any more right now. --lyndon _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 14:58:51 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05399 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:58:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQ0W-0002aX-FB for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:58:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUJwOin009943 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:58:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQ0W-0002aI-AY for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:58:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05361 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:58:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQ0T-0005ak-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:58:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPyZ-0005X6-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:56:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPwh-0005Ti-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:54:27 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbPvn-0002R8-W8; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:53:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbPux-0002PL-MZ for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:52:39 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05219 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:52:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPuk-0005OM-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:52:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPsx-0005Kj-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:50:35 -0500 Received: from 216-43-25-66.ip.mcleodusa.net ([216.43.25.66] helo=episteme-software.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPrf-0005Fh-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:49:15 -0500 Received: from [10.0.2.4] (216.43.25.67) by episteme-software.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.3b3) for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:48:45 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 6.1a7] Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:48:42 -0600 To: Lemonade From: Pete Resnick Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [lemonade] CATENATE-01 draft Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FORGED_MUA_EUDORA autolearn=no version=2.60 I've just sent in an updated CATENATE draft that uses IMAP URL for the message part syntax. Again, if you'd like to have a peek before it gets posted, you can look at: pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 15:04:57 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05752 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:04:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQ6P-0002iG-Pi for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:04:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUK4T5j010422 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:04:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQ6P-0002i1-L8 for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:04:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05700 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:04:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQ6M-0005nh-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:04:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQ4Y-0005kB-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:02:34 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQ32-0005hO-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:01:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQ34-0002eX-0J; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:01:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQ2g-0002ds-Ba for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:00:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05494 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:00:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQ2d-0005gE-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:00:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQ0k-0005di-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:58:38 -0500 Received: from 216-43-25-66.ip.mcleodusa.net ([216.43.25.66] helo=episteme-software.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbPzr-0005aF-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:57:43 -0500 Received: from [10.0.2.4] (216.43.25.67) by episteme-software.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.3b3); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:57:13 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1072788400@115.216-123-230-0.interbaun.com> References: <3FD33929.2010304@isode.com> <3FDDF8B9.3010906@isode.com> <3FE871DA.1020803@isode.com> <2147483647.1072788400@115.216-123-230-0.interbaun.com> X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 6.1a7] Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:57:09 -0600 To: Lyndon Nerenberg From: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: [lemonade] CATENATE draft Cc: Alexey Melnikov , Lemonade Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FORGED_MUA_EUDORA autolearn=no version=2.60 On 12/30/03 at 12:46 PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: >>>>IMHO, it is time to extend URL syntax for this anyway. I remember >>>>some talks about revision IMAP URL document. >>> >>>Does anyone know who is dealing with this? >> >>I think Lyndon wanted to take this, > >I did? I nominate someone else -- I'm way too far behind on my other >drafts to take on any more right now. Alexey, do you want to do it or shall I? pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 15:35:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07868 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:35:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQZn-0003oL-PS for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:34:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUKYpOe014649 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:34:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQZl-0003ni-81 for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:34:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07762 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQZh-0006wf-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:34:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQXt-0006om-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:32:54 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQW7-0006i9-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:31:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQW6-0003c1-BA; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:31:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQVb-0003b1-GX for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:30:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07469 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:30:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQVa-0006eU-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:30:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQTj-0006bQ-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:28:36 -0500 Received: from mxout6.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.33.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQSg-0006YV-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:27:30 -0500 Received: from shiva0.cac.washington.edu (shiva0.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.200]) by mxout6.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBUKRRlo008478; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:27:27 -0800 Received: from localhost (mrc@localhost) by shiva0.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBUKRRJe017406; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:27:27 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:27:27 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Crispin To: Ted Hardie cc: Rob Siemborski , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Ted Hardie wrote: > There is a critical distinction here--are we sourcing *messages* from these > stores or are we sourcing *content* to be included in messages from these stores? The current push proposal sources content; review the CATENATE specification carefully. There is currently no proposal on the table that does not source content. Although CATENATE could be used in pull (indeed, one of the scenarios that I intend to discuss in a pull architecture document would use CATENATE), CATENATE is not necessary for pull. CATENATE is crucial to push, or at least to the current push proposal. > I agree that there may be later work considered to extend an existing message storage > and retrieval protocol like POP along the same lines. That's part of a general > problem in having two different protocols in the same space, and not > something we can fix by fiat. This is precisely the position of the proponents of pull. They see push as (at best) a sidetrack that is a waste of time and effort. At worst, they see push as ultimately harming the later work by creating an entrenched base. > One of my presumptions about PULL has been that what could be PULLed could > be content to include in messages (e.g. specific body parts for a mime multi-part or > attachments) rather than only complete messages. As I noted above, push has the same presumption. > If we are working from the presumption that only a complete message > could be PULLed (as Pete has suggested), this risk goes down, but you > still get the added complexity of validating that what the access protocol provided > is a valid message. It would be very strange for pull to have this limitation when push does not! > I note, though, that the same problem occurs for PULL; it can force SMTP development > to track salient developments in the access protocols for PULL, which would include > at least those in IMAP. No matter which connection we make, we are talking about > entanglement here, and we need to go into that with our eyes open. Actually, no; pull does not have this danger. Pull leverages on existing access mechanisms. When it feels the need to extend an access mechanism, it attempts to do so in a way that other applications may be able to leverage on it. Pull is also more of a strategy rather than an explicit protocol. Push, on the other hand, creates transmission mechanisms which are specific to push and are unlikely to be useful for any other purpose. Push is an explicit protocol to implement a strategy. -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 15:48:53 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08311 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:48:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQmu-0004QW-Il for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:48:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUKmOvc017010 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:48:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQmu-0004QH-CU for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:48:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08300 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:48:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQms-0007P0-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:48:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQl5-0007MA-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:46:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQjh-0007KM-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:45:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQje-0004NA-NP; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:45:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQj6-0004MZ-O9 for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:44:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08247 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:44:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQj5-0007Hv-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:44:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQhF-0007F0-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:42:34 -0500 Received: from mxout1.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.32.134]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQfe-0007CQ-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:40:54 -0500 Received: from shiva0.cac.washington.edu (shiva0.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.200]) by mxout1.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBUKeqP3010718; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:40:52 -0800 Received: from localhost (mrc@localhost) by shiva0.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBUKeqJk018419; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:40:52 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:40:52 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Crispin To: Pete Resnick cc: Lyndon Nerenberg , Alexey Melnikov , Lemonade Subject: Re: [lemonade] CATENATE draft In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <3FD33929.2010304@isode.com> <3FDDF8B9.3010906@isode.com> <3FE871DA.1020803@isode.com> <2147483647.1072788400@115.216-123-230-0.interbaun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Pete Resnick wrote: > Alexey, do you want to do it or shall I? Given that Chris and I are currently working on IMAP URLs, don't you think that it would have been nice if you had brought us into this little party? -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 16:19:10 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09100 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:19:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbRGE-0005ck-B8 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:18:42 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBULIgUH021612 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:18:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbRGE-0005cV-5v for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:18:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09094 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:18:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRGC-0000SK-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:18:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbREE-0000Pc-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:16:39 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRCk-0000Mf-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:15:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbRCg-0005Z5-7b; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbRC9-0005X7-Ap for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:14:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09020 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:14:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRC7-0000LL-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:14:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRAG-0000JP-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:12:33 -0500 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbR9h-0000H5-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:11:58 -0500 Received: from neophyte.qualcomm.com (neophyte.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.149]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBULBnVY020386 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:11:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.46.227.161] (carbuncle.qualcomm.com [129.46.227.161]) by neophyte.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBULBlU0003582; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:11:47 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hardie@mage.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:11:46 -0800 To: Mark Crispin From: Ted Hardie Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan Cc: Rob Siemborski , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 12:27 PM -0800 12/30/2003, Mark Crispin wrote: >On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Ted Hardie wrote: >> There is a critical distinction here--are we sourcing *messages* from these >> stores or are we sourcing *content* to be included in messages from these stores? > >The current push proposal sources content; review the CATENATE >specification carefully. There is currently no proposal on the table that >does not source content. It seems what I wrote was not clear. Take a look at Section 3 of the new draft, at this text: The CATENATE command concatenates all of the message parts and appends them as a new message to the end of the specified mailbox. So a *message* is created which is then passed via the submit mechanism to the SMTP flow. From the SUBMIT point of view, if you will, the unit remains a message. Pete's new draft is also very clear that Catenate works only on messages or message parts on the current IMAP server: Use of a URL that refers to anything other than a message or message part from the currently selected mailbox on the current IMAP server is outside of the scope of this document, would require an extension to this specification, and a server implementing only this specification would return NO to such a request. This is a very clear statement on the intended limits of this approach. > > I agree that there may be later work considered to extend an existing message storage >> and retrieval protocol like POP along the same lines. That's part of a general >> problem in having two different protocols in the same space, and not >> something we can fix by fiat. > >This is precisely the position of the proponents of pull. They see push >as (at best) a sidetrack that is a waste of time and effort. At worst, >they see push as ultimately harming the later work by creating an >entrenched base. I think you missed my larger point: PUSH avoids the risk that SMTP/Submit servers will have to act as clients for multiple access protocols with different, incompatible authentication and authorization mechanisms. It scopes the problem such that it is limited to protocols already dealing with message stores (rather than generalized object stores). That means IMAP in the current charter. That it might be later applied to some other message storage/retrieval protocol is due to the historical reluctance of the real world to settle on a single protocol in this space. Fitting POP and IMAP to have congruent mechanisms for talking to SUBMIT/SMTP servers seems to me a no larger task than fitting SUBMIT/SMTP servers with the mechanisms needed to talk to IMAP and POP. That it seems far less likely to lead to mechanisms for talking to HTTP, FTP, Samba, NFS, AFS, and the rest of the crowd is my main point here. > > I note, though, that the same problem occurs for PULL; it can force SMTP development >> to track salient developments in the access protocols for PULL, which would include >> at least those in IMAP. No matter which connection we make, we are talking about >> entanglement here, and we need to go into that with our eyes open. > >Actually, no; pull does not have this danger. > >Pull leverages on existing access mechanisms. When it feels the need to >extend an access mechanism, it attempts to do so in a way that other >applications may be able to leverage on it. Pull is also more of a >strategy rather than an explicit protocol. "When it feels the need to extend an access mechanism, it attempts to do so in a way that other applications may be able to leverage on it" is exactly the same kind of entanglement. If PULL is going to use existing access mechanisms, it will have to track them just as PUSH would have to track SMTP. Unless you presume that the access mechanisms for these protocols are permanently frozen, there is simply no way around that. Since your text assumes that PULL may suggest extensions of its own, I'm guessing you're not presuming they will be frozen. I'm personally far from sanguine about getting interoperability from strategies rather than protocols. Protocols seem to do that pretty well, since they can set out the MUST/MAY/SHOULDs of interoperability. If we go on PULL at all, I think we must do it as a protocol, not a generalized strategy of "stuff in submissions can get incorporated by reference". That *would* be a "waste of time and effort". >Push, on the other hand, creates transmission mechanisms which are >specific to push and are unlikely to be useful for any other purpose. >Push is an explicit protocol to implement a strategy. Or to put it another way, it creates a protocol mechanism that is specifically scoped to a task. As usual, speaking personally, regards, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 16:40:54 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10085 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:40:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbRbG-0006IL-7Q for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:40:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBULeQ2O024197 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:40:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbRbG-0006IC-1s for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:40:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10052 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:40:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRbE-00011m-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:40:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRZO-0000yZ-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:38:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRXx-0000wD-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:37:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbRXw-0005vd-WC; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:37:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbRXP-0005uh-8c for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:36:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09785 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:36:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRXN-0000uQ-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:36:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRVW-0000sk-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:34:31 -0500 Received: from mxout6.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.33.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRTx-0000qI-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:32:53 -0500 Received: from shiva0.cac.washington.edu (shiva0.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.200]) by mxout6.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBULWplo015873; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:32:51 -0800 Received: from localhost (mrc@localhost) by shiva0.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBULWp9b021586; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:32:51 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:32:51 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Crispin To: Ted Hardie cc: Rob Siemborski , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Ted Hardie wrote: > It seems what I wrote was not clear. Take a look at Section 3 of the > new draft, at this text: >[snip] It's a false dichotomy to use this to distinguish push from pull. What you are describing is a characteristic of how CATENATE is defined, not anything specific to either push or pull. If BURL were defined to only accept IMAP URLs from a single mailbox on a single server, the result would be the same. Also, CATENATE can be used with pull. > I think you missed my larger point: PUSH avoids the risk that SMTP/Submit > servers will have to act as clients for multiple access protocols with different, > incompatible authentication and authorization mechanisms. Shouldn't that "risk" (if you see it as such) be something that the IAB and/or the IESG should weigh in on? Push does nothing to prevent that outcome from happening, and pull does nothing to mandate that outcome. > "When it feels the need to extend an access mechanism, it attempts to > do so in a way that other applications may be able to leverage on it" > is exactly the same kind of entanglement. If PULL is going to > use existing access mechanisms, it will have to track them just > as PUSH would have to track SMTP. Unless you presume that > the access mechanisms for these protocols are permanently frozen, > there is simply no way around that. Since your text assumes > that PULL may suggest extensions of its own, I'm guessing you're > not presuming they will be frozen. You've just stated the reason for using URLs, and not some access mechanism specific to a single protocol (such as what push defines). URLs are the common naming scheme. Pull naturally evolves as the protocols used by pull evolve, because pull uses the same direction as these protocols. Push has to be updated each time, because it operates in reverse. For better or worse, most of our data access protocols are pull-type, with SMTP standing out as being the most significant push-type. -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 17:29:06 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12785 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:29:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbSLu-0008MV-V0 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:28:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUMScEd032137 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:28:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbSLu-0008MG-QN for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:28:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12780 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:28:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbSLs-0004dg-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:28:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbSJu-0004bO-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:26:35 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbSIT-0004Yz-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:25:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbSIR-0008Iq-MQ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:25:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbSHw-0008HV-Mj for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:24:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12718 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:24:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbSHu-0004Y9-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:24:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbSG9-0004WC-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:22:42 -0500 Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbSFS-0004SB-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:21:58 -0500 Received: from crowley.qualcomm.com (crowley.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.151]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBUMLm4t004821; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:21:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.46.227.161] (vpn-10-50-0-14.qualcomm.com [10.50.0.14]) by crowley.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBUMLkhk020068; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:21:46 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hardie@mage.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:21:45 -0800 To: Mark Crispin From: Ted Hardie Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan Cc: Rob Siemborski , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 1:32 PM -0800 12/30/2003, Mark Crispin wrote: >On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Ted Hardie wrote: >> It seems what I wrote was not clear. Take a look at Section 3 of the >> new draft, at this text: >>[snip] > >It's a false dichotomy to use this to distinguish push from pull. What >you are describing is a characteristic of how CATENATE is defined, not >anything specific to either push or pull. I think it is fundamental to the design approaches. There are PULL design approaches in which the limitations are strict enough that only previously CATENATEd message from an IMAP mailbox could be PULLed. But you seem to be arguing that the strength of the PULL approach is in removing that set of limitations and planning for a very broad applicability to various access protocols. > > I think you missed my larger point: PUSH avoids the risk that SMTP/Submit >> servers will have to act as clients for multiple access protocols with different, >> incompatible authentication and authorization mechanisms. > >Shouldn't that "risk" (if you see it as such) be something that the IAB >and/or the IESG should weigh in on? Huh? Having a technical discussion in the working group on the merits of the different design approaches seems to be how the IETF has traditionally worked. Or am I utterly missing your point here? >Push does nothing to prevent that >outcome from happening, and pull does nothing to mandate that outcome. PUSH doesn't have this risk at all, so am I at a loss to understand that comment. With PUSH SMTP/Submit servers don't act as clients to access protocols at all. If PULL is scoped narrowly, then it might avoid that outcome, but the argument that it should be chosen because it allows for this mode of extension greatly heightens my personal sense of the likelihood of this outcome. > > "When it feels the need to extend an access mechanism, it attempts to >> do so in a way that other applications may be able to leverage on it" >> is exactly the same kind of entanglement. If PULL is going to >> use existing access mechanisms, it will have to track them just >> as PUSH would have to track SMTP. Unless you presume that >> the access mechanisms for these protocols are permanently frozen, >> there is simply no way around that. Since your text assumes >> that PULL may suggest extensions of its own, I'm guessing you're >> not presuming they will be frozen. > >You've just stated the reason for using URLs, and not some access >mechanism specific to a single protocol (such as what push defines). URLs >are the common naming scheme. And having a common naming scheme gets so little of the real work done for this that it is barely an advantage. If an SMTP/Submit server supports IMAP/POP/HTTP/FTP/SMB as access protocols, using the same syntax for the naming scheme is not much of the problem; actually supporting the different access methods, error conditions, and security mechanisms makes up the real work load. For every one of these access methods you add, you get the entanglement burden we've discussed. >Pull naturally evolves as the protocols used by pull evolve, because pull >uses the same direction as these protocols. Do you mean push vs. pull when you say direction in "pull uses the same direction as the protocols", or do you simply mean that pull's access mechanisms co-evolve with the access methods? If the latter, that certainly sounds like entanglement to me and one where the deployment problems look icky. As previously mentioned, speaking personally, regards, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 18:39:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19353 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:39:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbTRv-0003gu-KZ for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:38:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUNctOX014183 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:38:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbTRv-0003gd-AF for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:38:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19293 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:38:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTRs-0005wj-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:38:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTP1-0005NB-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:35:56 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTLJ-0004cT-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:32:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbTLD-00031F-Rv; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:31:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbTKk-0002yU-L5 for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:31:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18338 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:31:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTKh-0004Tt-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:31:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTH6-0003hs-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:27:46 -0500 Received: from 216-43-25-66.ip.mcleodusa.net ([216.43.25.66] helo=episteme-software.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTDL-0002ol-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:23:51 -0500 Received: from [10.0.2.4] (216.43.25.67) by episteme-software.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.3b3); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:23:20 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3FD33929.2010304@isode.com> <3FDDF8B9.3010906@isode.com> <3FE871DA.1020803@isode.com> <2147483647.1072788400@115.216-123-230-0.interbaun.com> X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 6.1a7] Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:23:17 -0600 To: Mark Crispin From: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: [lemonade] CATENATE draft Cc: Lyndon Nerenberg , Alexey Melnikov , Lemonade Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FORGED_MUA_EUDORA autolearn=no version=2.60 On 12/30/03 at 12:40 PM -0800, Mark Crispin wrote: On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Pete Resnick wrote: >>Alexey, do you want to do it or shall I? > >Given that Chris and I are currently working on IMAP URLs, don't you >think that it would have been nice if you had brought us into this >little party? If either of you would like what I took to be the relatively menial task of adding byte ranges to the syntax and perhaps updating the URI references, please feel free. I understood the task as a small pain-in-the-butt job that nobody would really want, which is why I put the query the way I did. I certainly didn't think it was going to be a "party" at all. (And why am I wasting everyone's time sending this to the list?) -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 19:00:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20428 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:00:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbTmC-0004F1-HH for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:59:53 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUNxqAV016297 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:59:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbTmC-0004Em-5s for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:59:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20212 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:59:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTm9-0007DB-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:59:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTjH-0006lM-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:56:52 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTiD-0006fy-03 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:55:45 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AbTVu-0003Oi-J3 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:43:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbTVt-0003tK-3I; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbTVY-0003sV-KH for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:42:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19912 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:42:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTVV-0006UW-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:42:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTUY-0006PX-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:41:38 -0500 Received: from mxout4.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.33.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTSt-00067k-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:39:55 -0500 Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.32.139]) by mxout4.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBUNds9n023341; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:39:54 -0800 Received: from Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM (panda.com [206.124.149.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBUNdpba002523 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:39:53 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:39:53 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) From: Mark Crispin To: Pete Resnick cc: Lyndon Nerenberg , Alexey Melnikov , Lemonade Subject: Re: [lemonade] CATENATE draft In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <3FD33929.2010304@isode.com> <3FDDF8B9.3010906@isode.com> <3FE871DA.1020803@isode.com> <2147483647.1072788400@115.216-123-230-0.interbaun.com> Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Pete Resnick wrote: > If either of you would like what I took to be the relatively menial task of > adding byte ranges to the syntax and perhaps updating the URI references, > please feel free. OK. I think that there is arguably a requirement for more than just this. Are byte ranges really sufficient, or would some kind of line range be desirable? What about some means to access envelope and/or bodystructure via URL? -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 19:00:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20483 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:00:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbTmH-0004FK-MX for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:59:58 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUNxvMr016316 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:59:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbTmH-0004F4-AH for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:59:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20249 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:59:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTmE-0007E9-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:59:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTjR-0006mw-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:57:02 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTiH-0006fy-01 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:55:49 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AbTUv-0003If-Uq for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:42:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbTUv-0003qY-Kb; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbTUM-0003oN-FQ for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:41:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19696 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:41:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTUJ-0006Mw-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:41:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTSA-00060O-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:39:11 -0500 Received: from mxout6.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.33.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbTPJ-0005Qy-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:36:13 -0500 Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.32.139]) by mxout6.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBUNaBlo030878; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:36:11 -0800 Received: from Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM (panda.com [206.124.149.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBUNa9ba002259 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:36:10 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:36:10 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) From: Mark Crispin To: Ted Hardie cc: Rob Siemborski , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Ted Hardie wrote: > There are PULL > design approaches in which the limitations are strict enough that > only previously CATENATEd message from an IMAP mailbox could > be PULLed. But you seem to be arguing that the strength of > the PULL approach is in removing that set of limitations and planning > for a very broad applicability to various access protocols. You are correct in saying that pull, by its nature, is extensible; and that this is a strength of pull. What you are missing is that the current push proposal is non-extensible by fiat, not by a technical limitation. A similar fiat can be placed on pull. Similarly, the current push proposal could be made extensible by removing the text that restricts it. The result is somewhat more complex than the pull case, but everything is still there. The bad part is that the extensibility must take place on the IMAP server rather than in the SUBMIT server. That's the distinguishing difference. If pull is extensible, the extensibility is on the SUBMIT server. If push is extensible, the extensibility is on the IMAP server and all other servers which are part of the extended coverage of push. It could be argued that since push makes extensibility harder, it is less likely to happen. To the extent that this may be desirable, this is a benefit of push but *not* a demerit of pull. > Having a technical discussion in the working group on the merits of > the different design approaches seems to be how the IETF has traditionally > worked. When we talk about "risks" of extensibility being used in ways beyond what is envisioned at a working group (and for that matter is outside of the charter of the working group), and in particular if we engineer something so as to make these "risks" less likely, then I feel that we should seek a wider audience for guidance about such "risks." I don't think that these are "risks". I think that it's a good thing to leave open the possibility of future work in an area. If the overall Internet architecture does not go in that direction, then it will remain a hook that never gets used. It's different when we do something with the conscious intent of precluding a particular future use. > PUSH doesn't have this risk at all, so am I at a loss to understand that > comment. With PUSH SMTP/Submit servers don't act as clients to > access protocols at all. However, IMAP servers do. The new version of CATENATE is been extended to take IMAP URLs; a stroke of the pen and the limitations of what kind of URLs are provided are gone. > If PULL is scoped narrowly, then it might > avoid that outcome, but the argument that it should be chosen because > it allows for this mode of extension greatly heightens my personal > sense of the likelihood of this outcome. I agree with this observation. Unlike you, I think that this is desirable; if it's likely to happen then it seems to me that there is an unfufilled need for this capability. > And having a common naming scheme gets so little of the real work > done for this that it is barely an advantage. If an SMTP/Submit server > supports IMAP/POP/HTTP/FTP/SMB as access protocols, using the > same syntax for the naming scheme is not much of the problem; > actually supporting the different access methods, error conditions, > and security mechanisms makes up the real work load. For every one > of these access methods you add, you get the entanglement burden > we've discussed. However, this is *not* a problem that is unique to message submission! Other applications (e.g. web browsers) face the same problem. Thus, message submission can benefit by a common solution. The need to solve this problem does not evaporate by selecting push. Your argument seems to be "if we adopt push, we will create enough of a barrier to the use of other access protocols that anyone who tries will be obliged to give up." Consider this gedanken experiment: suppose that it turns out that the use of other access protocols suddenly becomes necessary. Maybe it's a contact to Qualcomm to sell 50 million cell phones, but only if they can use multiple access protocols. Would you be in a better position with pull, or with push? I think that the answer is pull; and that I'd be in a world of hurt if I only had push via an IMAP server. > Do you mean push vs. pull when you say direction in "pull uses the same > direction as the protocols", or do you simply mean that pull's access > mechanisms co-evolve with the access methods? If the latter, that > certainly sounds like entanglement to me and one where the deployment > problems look icky. Yes, the deployment problems *are* icky; but that's the case no matter what solution you face. Consider the testimony about the impact that push would have on the architecture of some existing large IMAP server farms. I do not feel that making deployment problems ickier is going to save us from having to get icky. Pull doesn't make matters any ickier as long as we don't go tromping into the icky swamp. But, if we do have to enter the swamp in the future, pull offers some amount of help through. -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 19:45:12 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21968 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:45:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbUTc-0005Yr-IB for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:44:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBV0iiS0021371 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:44:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbUTc-0005Yc-C2 for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:44:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21962 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:44:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbUTa-0001B7-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:44:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbURo-00015z-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:42:53 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbUQ1-00010c-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:41:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbUQ1-0005SC-8F; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:41:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbUPd-0005Qz-IU for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:40:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21837 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:40:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbUPb-0000wy-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:40:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbUNr-0000u3-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:38:48 -0500 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbUN7-0000ps-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:38:02 -0500 Received: from crowley.qualcomm.com (crowley.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.151]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBV0bvVY027617 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:37:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.46.227.161] (carbuncle.qualcomm.com [129.46.227.161]) by crowley.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBV0bshk002524; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:37:55 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hardie@mage.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:37:52 -0800 To: Mark Crispin From: Ted Hardie Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan Cc: Rob Siemborski , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 3:36 PM -0800 12/30/2003, Mark Crispin wrote: >On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Ted Hardie wrote: >> There are PULL >> design approaches in which the limitations are strict enough that >> only previously CATENATEd message from an IMAP mailbox could >> be PULLed. But you seem to be arguing that the strength of >> the PULL approach is in removing that set of limitations and planning >> for a very broad applicability to various access protocols. > >You are correct in saying that pull, by its nature, is extensible; and >that this is a strength of pull. > >What you are missing is that the current push proposal is non-extensible >by fiat, not by a technical limitation. A similar fiat can be placed on >pull. There is difference between being fiat and design. The PUSH approach starts from the idea that a message or the elements of the message are in an IMAP mailbox and need to be SUBMITted into the SMTP/Submit system, possibly with some assembly of the elements. Boiled down, it starts from where the message *is* and moves it to *where it needs to be*. The PULL approach starts from *where the message needs to be* and uses an access protocol to bring it from *where it is*. If you like, it starts from the idea that the message will need to be injected into the SMTP/Submit system and so this is a logical place to do the protocol work. For me, the kind of extensibility which is inherent in the two designs seems different. The PULL approach's design favors the kind of extension in which multiple access protocols would be used because the SMTP/Submit server *must* use an access protocol to retrieve the message for submission. The PUSH approach's design doesn't have that same bias; its bias would be toward multiple submission mechanisms (SMTP on port 25, Submission on 587, potentially submission to something like MMS in some environments). >Similarly, the current push proposal could be made extensible by removing >the text that restricts it. The result is somewhat more complex than the >pull case, but everything is still there. The bad part is that the >extensibility must take place on the IMAP server rather than in the SUBMIT >server. And if someone were arguing that the IMAP server should use access protocols to gather elements of a message prior to submission, I would argue that this was a mistake. > >> Having a technical discussion in the working group on the merits of >> the different design approaches seems to be how the IETF has traditionally >> worked. > >When we talk about "risks" of extensibility being used in ways beyond what >is envisioned at a working group (and for that matter is outside of the >charter of the working group), and in particular if we engineer something >so as to make these "risks" less likely, then I feel that we should seek a >wider audience for guidance about such "risks." A wider audience is certainly appropriate, and I can think of several working groups or mailing lists to which a pointer to the drafts and discussion would be valuable. discuss@apps, imaa, smtp, seive, et al would be good, and in that context cc:ing the IESG and IAB lists would be appropriate. But doing that, in my opinion, is asking those lists' recipients to participate in the working group discussion, not changing the context of the discussion. The meta-discussion on that point probably belongs someplace else; thanks for clarifying your view. > >> PUSH doesn't have this risk at all, so am I at a loss to understand that >> comment. With PUSH SMTP/Submit servers don't act as clients to >> access protocols at all. > >However, IMAP servers do. The new version of CATENATE is been extended to >take IMAP URLs; a stroke of the pen and the limitations of what kind of >URLs are provided are gone. See above for my view on the wisdom of such a move. Note also that I think it is less likely, since the fundamental design isn't based on the use of such an access protocol. > > If PULL is scoped narrowly, then it might >> avoid that outcome, but the argument that it should be chosen because >> it allows for this mode of extension greatly heightens my personal >> sense of the likelihood of this outcome. > >I agree with this observation. Unlike you, I think that this is >desirable; if it's likely to happen then it seems to me that there is an >unfufilled need for this capability. > >> And having a common naming scheme gets so little of the real work >> done for this that it is barely an advantage. If an SMTP/Submit server >> supports IMAP/POP/HTTP/FTP/SMB as access protocols, using the >> same syntax for the naming scheme is not much of the problem; >> actually supporting the different access methods, error conditions, >> and security mechanisms makes up the real work load. For every one >> of these access methods you add, you get the entanglement burden >> we've discussed. > >However, this is *not* a problem that is unique to message submission! >Other applications (e.g. web browsers) face the same problem. Thus, >message submission can benefit by a common solution. A common solution to what? >The need to solve this problem does not evaporate by selecting push. Your >argument seems to be "if we adopt push, we will create enough of a barrier >to the use of other access protocols that anyone who tries will be obliged >to give up." No, "if we adopt PUSH, the fundamental design starts from an IMAP server with CATENATEd messages, so there is no need to use an access protocol external to the server" --instead we use a submission protocol to inject the message into the usual SUBMIT/SMTP system. This isn't a "barrier" in the same sense you seem to be thinking; it's a design strategy. >Consider this gedanken experiment: suppose that it turns out that the use >of other access protocols suddenly becomes necessary. Maybe it's a >contact to Qualcomm to sell 50 million cell phones, but only if they can >use multiple access protocols. Would you be in a better position with >pull, or with push? Recitals: 1) I don't speak for Qualcomm 2) My job as a member of this working group is to think about what is best for the Internet, not what is best for Qualcomm. That said, it's not a very good gedanken experiment. You're not starting from "here's the problem, imagine the solution based on these two designs" you're starting from "here's the money". If you'd like to start from a gedanken experiment that talks about an engineering problem, I'll be happy to spend more time on it. > >Yes, the deployment problems *are* icky; but that's the case no matter >what solution you face. Consider the testimony about the impact that push >would have on the architecture of some existing large IMAP server farms. The strains on SMTP/Submit servers seem to me much higher, since they are also in the middle of the spam arms race and a likely need to support new internationalization mechanisms. The good side of that is that some servers are being watched and upgraded; the bad side may well be the interaction between the needs of PULL and those needs. As noted, I am speaking personally, regards, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 21:57:05 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25213 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:57:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbWXF-0000Y2-Rq for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:56:38 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBV2ubWN002100 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:56:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbWXF-0000Xn-Lp for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:56:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25195 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:56:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbWXC-0005Hw-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:56:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbWVV-0005F3-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:54:50 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbWTj-0005Bq-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:52:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbWTk-0000Ra-BN; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:53:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbWTH-0000PT-4N for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:52:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25023 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:52:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbWTE-00056b-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:52:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbWRJ-00050L-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:30 -0500 Received: from mxout6.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.33.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbWPN-0004wE-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:48:29 -0500 Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.33.9]) by mxout6.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBV2mRlo012810; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:48:27 -0800 Received: from Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM (panda.com [206.124.149.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBV2mOvo007131 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:48:26 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:48:25 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) From: Mark Crispin To: Ted Hardie cc: Rob Siemborski , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Ted Hardie wrote: > The PUSH approach > starts from the idea that a message or the elements of the message > are in an IMAP mailbox and need to be SUBMITted into the SMTP/Submit > system, possibly with some assembly of the elements. > The PULL approach starts from *where the message needs to be* > and uses an access protocol to bring it from *where it is*. This is all correct, but what you've overlooked is the CATENATE command in the actual push proposal. Now that it has been extended to accept IMAP URLs, it can easily be extended to accept other forms of URLs. If the intent is to prohibt such extensibility, then adding IMAP URLs to CATENATE is a mistake and needs to be revoked. I disagree with that intent (and thus the conclusion), but that's not the point. The point is that it's really a wash in terms of extensibility. It would be cleaner to extend pull, but push does not effectively block the type of extensibility that you seem to worry about. > For me, the kind of extensibility which is inherent in the two designs seems > different. If you think about it, I'm arguing against you by conceeding the point about extensibility. I *can* extend push to do everything that I might want to do. It's just a question of what the result looks like. > And if someone were arguing that the IMAP server should use > access protocols to gather elements of a message prior to submission, > I would argue that this was a mistake. But that is where push leads us! Do you think that people in the future are going to care about whether or not you or I think it's a mistake? We could have much shorter IETF meetings if the sensibilities of the past were to determine the outcome of all thorny issues. > >The new version of CATENATE is been extended to > >take IMAP URLs; a stroke of the pen and the limitations of what kind of > >URLs are provided are gone. > See above for my view on the wisdom of such a move. Note also that I think > it is less likely, since the fundamental design isn't based on the use of such > an access protocol. I agree completely on the lack of wisdom of doing that. Nevertheless, I feel that it's less unwise to do that than it is to have multiple submit protocols. I also disagree with you about it being less likely to happen in a push world. Need finds the way of least resistance, no matter what artificial barriers we might choose to erect. If it were otherwise, the flat prohibitions against submit in POP and IMAP would have been the final word. > >However, this is *not* a problem that is unique to message submission! > >Other applications (e.g. web browsers) face the same problem. Thus, > >message submission can benefit by a common solution. > A common solution to what? A common solution to the problem of how to unify access mechanisms, error conditions, and security methods within the framework of a URL-based method to access data. > >The need to solve this problem does not evaporate by selecting push. Your > >argument seems to be "if we adopt push, we will create enough of a barrier > >to the use of other access protocols that anyone who tries will be obliged > >to give up." > No, "if we adopt PUSH, the fundamental design starts from an IMAP server > with CATENATEd messages, so there is no need to use an access protocol > external to the server" --instead we use a submission protocol to inject > the message into the usual SUBMIT/SMTP system. That just moves the issue from SUBMIT to CATENATE. It doesn't matter whether your or I feel that people should insert text from other than the selected mailbox. People are already doing it. The question is, how will they do it in the world that we are creating? Will they accept a limitation that messages in the selected mailbox are fast and everything else is slow? > That said, it's not a very good gedanken experiment. You're not starting > from "here's the problem, imagine the solution based on these two designs" > you're starting from "here's the money". Indeed. But isn't "here's the money" the underlying motivation? A purely engineering position states that forward is a long-solved problem, and we're just talking about efficiency hacks that will be overtaken by events once we have terabit wireless nets and mobile devices with 100GHz processors and terabytes of storage... :-) I don't think that we can ignore "here's the money." We differ in that you believe that pull creates an incentive that push does not, whereas I believe that the incentive as being there no matter what is decided. Pull recognizes the attraction from the get-go and embraces it. Push attempts to make it less attractive, but the workaround is easy and obvious. All it takes is a simple little extension to CATENATE, ignoring that nasty little "thou shalt not" paragraph. I'd probably do it myself. Perhaps it's just that I'm wierd, and nobody else feels the incentive, and push will go through without anyone else making that simple little extension. Only time will tell. > The strains on SMTP/Submit servers seem to me much higher, since they > are also in the middle of the spam arms race Not necessarily! UW, like most other large organizations, has separate servers for submit vs. incoming mail. Not only are they separate boxes, but are on completely different subnets. > and a likely need to support > new internationalization mechanisms. All the more reason to have one (and only one) submit mechanism. -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 31 10:19:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15450 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:19:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abi7Y-00029L-0a for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:18:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBVFIp7x008260 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:18:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abi7X-000299-9m for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:18:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15442 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:18:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abi7V-0000Rk-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:18:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Abi5i-0000N7-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:16:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abi4o-0000Io-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:16:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abi4o-00024d-2J; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:16:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbLSX-0008NG-Le for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:07:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24576 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:06:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbLSQ-0001QZ-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:06:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbLQm-0001OT-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:05:12 -0500 Received: from lin1.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.6.59]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbLMp-0001LM-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:01:07 -0500 Received: from SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu (SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.122.8]) (user=rjs3 mech=GSSAPI (0 bits)) by lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBUF0el4009570; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:00:40 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:00:40 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Siemborski To: Mark Crispin cc: Ted Hardie , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Mark Crispin wrote: > I don't see this as a danger, particularly not with "in addtion to" rather > than "instead of". I agree that this seems to be a feature, not a bug -- don't force the user to have to http-download a document and the re-upload it to their SMTP or IMAP server to do a submission. > One danger I see with the push model is that sooner or later, people will > want to use the other stores and then will want commands to push to the > IMAP server requests that will have it pull from HTTP, POP, and NNTP > servers. That way lies madness. My personal largest fear about IMAP push is similar -- that once we extend IMAP to support submission, we will decide that there is a need to extend more and more protocols (POP, NNTP, HTTP being obvious ones) with slightly different mail submission mechanisms, as we discover needs to source messages from these stores (in the absence of an IMAP server). -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++ E W+ N(-) o? K- w-- O- M-- V-- PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ X- R@ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++ h+ r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 31 11:57:16 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17785 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:57:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbjeK-0004rj-7l for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:56:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBVGumjc018697 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:56:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbjeK-0004rU-2A for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:56:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17753 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:56:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbjeI-0003ti-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:56:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbjcU-0003p3-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:54:55 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abjaf-0003lA-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:53:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abjae-0004lq-P4; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:53:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbjaQ-0004lP-FP for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:52:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17644 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:52:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbjaP-0003iO-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:52:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbjYY-0003g1-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:50:51 -0500 Received: from mxout3.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.32.166]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbjYO-0003dt-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:50:40 -0500 Received: from shiva0.cac.washington.edu (shiva0.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.200]) by mxout3.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBVGobsr004583; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:50:37 -0800 Received: from localhost (mrc@localhost) by shiva0.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBVGoaB7020103; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:50:37 -0800 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:50:36 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Crispin To: Rob Siemborski cc: Ted Hardie , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Rob Siemborski wrote: > My personal largest fear about IMAP push is similar -- that once we extend > IMAP to support submission, we will decide that there is a need to extend > more and more protocols (POP, NNTP, HTTP being obvious ones) with slightly > different mail submission mechanisms, as we discover needs to source > messages from these stores (in the absence of an IMAP server). Rob and I are definitely on the same wavelength.... ;-) -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 31 15:16:12 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23580 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:16:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abmkk-0001qu-7K for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:15:38 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBVKFcA1007109 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:15:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbmkP-0001q5-MZ for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:15:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23445 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:15:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbmkJ-00021i-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:15:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Abm7I-00016T-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:34:53 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abm5U-000110-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:33:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abm5V-0000eJ-8D; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abm5H-0000e1-Aa for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:32:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21698 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:32:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abm5E-0000y6-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:32:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Abm3K-0000u2-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:30:47 -0500 Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abm1P-0000pd-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:28:47 -0500 Received: from neophyte.qualcomm.com (neophyte.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.149]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBVJSc4t015644; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:28:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.46.227.161] (carbuncle.qualcomm.com [129.46.227.161]) by neophyte.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBVJSaU0019176; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:28:36 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hardie@mage.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:28:34 -0800 To: Mark Crispin From: Ted Hardie Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan Cc: Rob Siemborski , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 6:48 PM -0800 12/30/2003, Mark Crispin wrote: > >The point is that it's really a wash in terms of extensibility. It would >be cleaner to extend pull, but push does not effectively block the type of >extensibility that you seem to worry about. And this seems to be a fundamental disagreement. I agree that it would be possible to extend both push and pull, but I don't think it is a wash. From my point of view, the designs are different enough that the balance is clearly tipped in favor of PUSH. > > And if someone were arguing that the IMAP server should use >> access protocols to gather elements of a message prior to submission, >> I would argue that this was a mistake. > >But that is where push leads us! Again, I disagree. PUSH starts from a message store and doesn't require an access protocol in the common case. Using external bodies in a message and having the recipient collect the external objects deals with quite a few of the less common cases. I agree that PUSH could be extended by having CATENATE do this work instead of external bodies, but I don't think this is where PUSH leads us. I *do* think that is where PULL leads us. That's why I don't see this as a wash. > > >> That said, it's not a very good gedanken experiment. You're not starting >> from "here's the problem, imagine the solution based on these two designs" >> you're starting from "here's the money". > >Indeed. But isn't "here's the money" the underlying motivation? It's still not useful place to start the thought experiment if you want the result to tell you which engineering choice to make. Let's take the thought experiment based on a problem: the pain in forwarding messages from one message store to another over slow or lossy links. The time cost of downloading, then re-transmitting them is a "here's the money/problem" element of that. There are several solutions: improve the speed and eliminate the loss in the links; eliminate the need to download & re-upload the data; or make the time cost of downloading and re-uploading less painful through scheduling, rate reductions, etc." I'd say that both PUSH and PULL fall into the category of solutions based on the aim "eliminate the need to download & re-upload the data". I'd even say both do this, and we're now talking about the engineering balance of other consequences of the different approaches. > > The strains on SMTP/Submit servers seem to me much higher, since they >> are also in the middle of the spam arms race > >Not necessarily! > >UW, like most other large organizations, has separate servers for submit >vs. incoming mail. Not only are they separate boxes, but are on >completely different subnets. You're quite right that SUBMIT servers are or can be separate from incoming mail. But the spam arms race includes those servers as well, as one of the key ways folks fight spam is by ensuring that systems within their administrative border aren't injecting it (either because of black hats or "owned" boxes). That can be reactive (driven by black-list servers) or proactive, but it is still a front in the war, so there is still a strain here on those systems. > > and a likely need to support >> new internationalization mechanisms. > >All the more reason to have one (and only one) submit mechanism. > The same entanglement applies to both PULL and PUSH here, but PULL is in a worse spot. The IMAP server is responsible in PUSH for ensuring that the message is valid before injecting it into the SMTP/Submit system; where the SMTP/Submit server must validate it as it is accessed or assembled in the PULL view. That's a burden on the SMTP/Submit server, and, as I said before, I think they are already in the more fragile place in the overall system. I shall probably not contribute again before the New Year, so happy New Year and regards, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 31 15:23:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24381 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:23:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abmrp-0002Ai-4g for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:22:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBVKMvYS008342 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:22:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abmro-0002AT-Vv for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:22:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24357 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:22:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abmrn-0002pS-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:22:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Abmq2-0002ln-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:21:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abmp2-0002hG-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:20:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abmp2-000258-6w; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:20:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbmoG-00022f-DV for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:19:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24036 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:19:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbmoE-0002cK-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:19:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbmmZ-0002Q5-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:17:32 -0500 Received: from mxout3.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.32.166]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abmk8-00029f-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:15:00 -0500 Received: from shiva0.cac.washington.edu (shiva0.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.200]) by mxout3.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBVKEPsr026938; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:14:25 -0800 Received: from localhost (mrc@localhost) by shiva0.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBVKEP4X001865; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:14:25 -0800 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:14:25 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Crispin To: Ted Hardie cc: Rob Siemborski , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Ted Hardie wrote: > And this seems to be a fundamental disagreement. I agree that > it would be possible to extend both push and pull, but I don't > think it is a wash. From my point of view, the designs are different > enough that the balance is clearly tipped in favor of PUSH. I agree that we disagree. > PUSH starts from a message store and doesn't require > an access protocol in the common case. Using external bodies in > a message and having the recipient collect the external objects deals > with quite a few of the less common cases. So, you expect the *recipient* to use pull in the push model? This means that the recepient must be given access to the data store. That creates an even ickier security and access control problem. MIME external bodies have not taken off for a reason. URLs in messages are far more common, but those also require anonymous access. > I agree that PUSH > could be extended by having CATENATE do this work instead of > external bodies, but I don't think this is where PUSH leads us. Here is another point of disagreement. If push is selected, I will find it extremely attractive to extend CATENATE in my implementation to accept multiple types of URLs. I have yet to hear anything that diminishes this attraction. > >Indeed. But isn't "here's the money" the underlying motivation? > It's still not useful place to start the thought experiment if you want > the result to tell you which engineering choice to make. The engineering choice depends upon an underlying premise of the need. The "money" in my thought experiment dictates the premise and not the engineering. You're insisting upon selecting a premise that leads to a different engineering choice. That's valid for supporting your arguments based upon that premise. But it does not debunk the argument based upon a different premise. Your premise excludes message composition using data sources from outside the mailbox which is currently being accessed by the composing client. I am asking you to consider what happens if that premise is invalidated. Otherwise this entire argument runs the risk of circulus in demonstrando. > You're quite right that SUBMIT servers are or can be separate from incoming > mail. But the spam arms race includes those servers as well, as one of > the key ways folks fight spam is by ensuring that systems within their > administrative border aren't injecting it (either because of black hats or > "owned" boxes). That can be reactive (driven by black-list servers) or > proactive, but it is still a front in the war, so there is still a strain here > on those systems. How is an IMAP server supposed to be any more immune from this than a submit server that requires authentication? > > > and a likely need to support > >> new internationalization mechanisms. > >All the more reason to have one (and only one) submit mechanism. > The same entanglement applies to both PULL and PUSH here, but PULL > is in a worse spot. The IMAP server is responsible in PUSH for ensuring > that the message is valid before injecting it into the SMTP/Submit > system; where the SMTP/Submit server must validate it as it is accessed > or assembled in the PULL view. That's a burden on the SMTP/Submit > server, and, as I said before, I think they are already in the more fragile > place in the overall system. How is an IMAP server any better equipped to do this than a submit server? An IMAP server does not even have the simple tools to fufill the requirements of 8BITMIME, much less any additional requirements brought about by i18n. A submit server, by definition, has to be capable of validating messages and, if necessary, reforming it. -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 31 15:50:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25120 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:50:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbnHv-0002s7-JF for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:49:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBVKntqL011033 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:49:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbnHv-0002rs-DK for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:49:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25090 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:49:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbnHt-0000ad-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:49:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbnFg-0000XC-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:47:39 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbnEA-0000Sa-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:46:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbnE9-0002k8-Pv; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:46:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbnDl-0002jo-4o for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:45:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24996 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:45:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbnDj-0000R5-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:45:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbnBt-0000Lk-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:43:44 -0500 Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbnAA-0000FZ-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:41:54 -0500 Received: from sabrina.qualcomm.com (sabrina.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.150]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBVKfn4t018509; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:41:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.46.227.161] (carbuncle.qualcomm.com [129.46.227.161]) by sabrina.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBVKfl0O011117; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:41:47 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hardie@mage.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:41:46 -0800 To: Mark Crispin From: Ted Hardie Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan Cc: Rob Siemborski , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 12:14 PM -0800 12/31/2003, Mark Crispin wrote: > >> PUSH starts from a message store and doesn't require >> an access protocol in the common case. Using external bodies in >> a message and having the recipient collect the external objects deals >> with quite a few of the less common cases. > >So, you expect the *recipient* to use pull in the push model? This means >that the recepient must be given access to the data store. That creates >an even ickier security and access control problem. No, I meant for the case where the access protocol was other than IMAP (e.g. HTTP). I did not mean to imply that the recipient would collect message parts from the IMAP store. > >> I agree that PUSH >> could be extended by having CATENATE do this work instead of >> external bodies, but I don't think this is where PUSH leads us. > >Here is another point of disagreement. If push is selected, I will find >it extremely attractive to extend CATENATE in my implementation to accept >multiple types of URLs. I have yet to hear anything that diminishes this >attraction. By "handling multiple types of URLs" are you presuming that you would hand-off the actual protocol processing using existing systems, or do you believe you will need an API between IMAP and them to handle errors and related feedback? In the use case you foresee, are you presuming that there will be an authentication step in those accesses, or are you presuming anonymous access? > >Your premise excludes message composition using data sources from outside >the mailbox which is currently being accessed by the composing client. I >am asking you to consider what happens if that premise is invalidated. >Otherwise this entire argument runs the risk of circulus in demonstrando. As I noted above, one of the key questions may be whether the data sources require authentication and authorization or do not. The inclusion of URIs (whether as message-external or in the body) can handle the un-authenticated case as well or better than an extension to CATENATE, since the recipient can dereference them as well as the server. Further reply will have to wait; sorry about the split, but I wanted to get the clarification on the first point made as soon as possible. regards, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 31 16:33:57 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26386 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:33:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abny4-00045M-SD for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:33:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBVLXSfQ015700 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:33:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abny4-000459-Ld for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:33:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26370 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:33:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abny2-0001cl-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:33:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Abnwc-0001ar-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:32:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abnul-0001Xx-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:30:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abnul-00040X-Sl; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:30:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbnuP-0003yf-3H for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:29:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26188 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:29:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbnuN-0001Wb-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:29:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Abnsg-0001Uk-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:27:57 -0500 Received: from mxout6.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.33.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abnra-0001SL-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:26:47 -0500 Received: from shiva0.cac.washington.edu (shiva0.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.200]) by mxout6.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBVLQilo005242; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:26:44 -0800 Received: from localhost (mrc@localhost) by shiva0.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBVLQi2x005682; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:26:44 -0800 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:26:44 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Crispin To: Ted Hardie cc: Rob Siemborski , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Ted Hardie wrote: > No, I meant for the case where the access protocol was other than > IMAP (e.g. HTTP). I did not mean to imply that the recipient would collect > message parts from the IMAP store. IMAP is not the only access protocol which requires authentication. I, as the sender, am more likely to have access via the access protocol than my recipient. Instead of pull, which puts the burden on one place (the submit server), you seem to be advocating a push that split the burden with the IMAP server handling the currently selected mailbox (but no other IMAP URLs) and the recipient handling all other access (including the IMAP store using mailboxes other than the selected mailbox). I don't see that as viable. If it's going to be push, then the entire burden goes onto the IMAP server via the CATENATE command. I think that this is a terrible idea (thus my choice of pull) but it is less terrible than a split pull model. > By "handling multiple types of URLs" are you presuming that you would > hand-off the actual protocol processing using existing systems, or do > you believe you will need an API between IMAP and them to handle > errors and related feedback? I'll just have to add clients for all the other protocols into the IMAP server. IMAP will thus become the one single-source for all your access needs. And when clients start to take advantage of it, there'll be pressure on all the other IMAP server implementors to do the same. I don't like this idea, but that's where push leads me. I doubt that I'm alone. > In the use case you foresee, are you presuming that there will be > an authentication step in those accesses, or are you presuming > anonymous access? Of course there'll be authentication. There'll just have to be some means to work out how that will happen. > As I noted above, one of the key questions may be whether the data sources > require authentication and authorization or do not. The inclusion of URIs > (whether as message-external or in the body) can handle the un-authenticated > case as well or better than an extension to CATENATE, since the recipient > can dereference them as well as the server. If the URIs other than the selected mailbox do not require authentication, then the argument against pull about authentication being "icky" does not apply. If the URIs do require authentication, then the split-push model requires that the recipient possess the necessary authentication credentials. The pull model, and the MRC-push model using extended CATENATE, uses the sender's credentials and does not make such requirements on the recipient. IMHO, it is far "ickier" to send my email recipients a userid and password to access a file than it is for me to instruct my submit mechanism (whether it be pull or fixed-push) to use my authentication credentials to access the data. The submit mechanism refuses to talk to me without my providing my authentication credentials, and I use an authentication mechanism which confirms that the submit mechanism is indeed my submit mechanism rather than an imposter. In other words, it trusts me and I trust it. Even so, I needn't give the submit mechanism unlimited authentication credentials to access just any data on the resource. I just need to give it sufficient credentials to do the job that I want to it do. There are many ways that this can be done. Pass-through credentials are one way. Limited credentials for one particular use, such as URLAUTH, are another. What's neat about URLAUTH in the pull model is that not only can I limit the submit mechanism's access to my mail store, but I can make it so that the URLAUTH is useless to an imposter submit mechanism (assuming that I was careless and failed to detect the imposter when I authenticated to it). I don't have quite the same level of protection with the fixed-push model, but to the point that the extended CATENATE is a type of pull it will have the protection. -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 31 16:52:03 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26854 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:52:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AboFb-0005Mq-AF for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:51:35 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBVLpZNa020632 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:51:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AboFb-0005Mh-4s for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:51:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26843 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:51:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AboFZ-00021C-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:51:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AboE2-0001zK-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:50:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AboCB-0001wo-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:48:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AboC9-0005Fx-J3; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AboBh-0005FU-TN for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:47:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26763 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:47:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AboBY-0001uh-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:47:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Abo9k-0001sk-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:45:35 -0500 Received: from mxout2.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.33.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abo7k-0001ps-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:43:28 -0500 Received: from shiva0.cac.washington.edu (shiva0.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.200]) by mxout2.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBVLhP4l004934; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:43:26 -0800 Received: from localhost (mrc@localhost) by shiva0.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hBVLhPmh006235; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:43:25 -0800 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:43:25 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Crispin To: Ted Hardie cc: Rob Siemborski , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Mark Crispin wrote: > I don't see that as viable. If it's going to be push, then the entire > burden goes onto the IMAP server via the CATENATE command. I think that > this is a terrible idea (thus my choice of pull) but it is less terrible > than a split pull model. ^^^^ Correction: "split push". Sorry for the typo. -- 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 lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 31 19:25:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01260 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:25:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abqe1-00010W-73 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:24:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i010OvQF003866 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:24:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abqe1-00010H-1i for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:24:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01252 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:24:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abqdu-0005Yc-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:24:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbqZg-0005Se-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:20:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbqVr-0005NK-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:16:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbqVN-0000oT-1c; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:16:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbqUb-0000o5-Ke for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:15:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01076 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:15:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbqUV-0005Lg-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:15:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbqQq-0005Fc-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:11:23 -0500 Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbqLJ-00056b-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:05:37 -0500 Received: from neophyte.qualcomm.com (neophyte.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.149]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id i010534t025623; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:05:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.163.7] (vpn-10-50-0-35.qualcomm.com [10.50.0.35]) by neophyte.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id i0104uU0012046; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:04:57 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hardie@mage.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:04:53 -0800 To: Mark Crispin From: Ted Hardie Subject: RE: [lemonade] IMAP push/pull plan Cc: Rob Siemborski , Glenn Parsons , "IETF LEMONADE (E-mail)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 1:26 PM -0800 12/31/2003, Mark Crispin wrote: >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Ted Hardie wrote: >> No, I meant for the case where the access protocol was other than >> IMAP (e.g. HTTP). I did not mean to imply that the recipient would collect >> message parts from the IMAP store. > >IMAP is not the only access protocol which requires authentication. I, as >the sender, am more likely to have access via the access protocol than my >recipient. Instead of pull, which puts the burden on one place (the >submit server), you seem to be advocating a push that split the burden >with the IMAP server handling the currently selected mailbox (but no other >IMAP URLs) and the recipient handling all other access (including the IMAP >store using mailboxes other than the selected mailbox). >I don't see that as viable. If it's going to be push, then the entire >burden goes onto the IMAP server via the CATENATE command. Deciding that the entire burden goes onto the IMAP server is contrary to existing practice, in that folks in many environments use external pointers by including URLs in their messages. External bodies may not be common, but I believe that the expectation that a recipient can choose to dereference included URLs (or not) is pretty well established. So it seems to me that the idea that that all of the internal references in a message would be dereferenced in order to do PUSH is a strawman. If you were to take a pure taxonomy, messages with included URLs are push/pull; SMTP pushes the reference, and the access protocol for the URL is invoked to pull some of the content. And while all of this is a very interesting, I think we have to go back to the common use case, and ask ourselves whether "forward without download", which is one of the immediately motivating cases here, would require anything more than what an IMAP server can do using the local mailboxes. And perhaps we ough to even ask the larger question "are we optimizing for the right use case", since the client always has the option of accessing and including content. For cases where content cannot be included from the local store or through a dereferencable URI (for whatever access reason), that fallback is always available. > >If the URIs do require authentication, then the split-push model requires >that the recipient possess the necessary authentication credentials. The >pull model, and the MRC-push model using extended CATENATE, uses the >sender's credentials and does not make such requirements on the recipient. So there are three cases: URIs that do not require authentication or authorization; URIs that do require authentication or authorization where the recipient can be expected to possess the credentials; URIs that do require authentication or authorization where the recipient cannot be expected to possess the credentials. The first we agree is not an issue for this (though it may be one for performance or code complexity). The second works fine with a split push/pull and is one portion of the non-local assembly class of uses of this protocol (and remember that I think the local assembly class will be the lion's share). The third can be worked by using the "pawn ticket" authorization model. "Pure" pull is at a disadvantage here, given that there will be few or no elements in the second class. As has been noted, I am speaking personally, regards, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade