Subject: RE: [lemonade] Interim meeting - proposal # 2

From: "Glenn Parsons" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:42:56 -0400

Ted said:

> Speaking personally, I think it is needed to get the group focused 
> again, and to
> develop a game plan for tackling some of the issues that have lapsed into
> dormancy while we've been discussing PUSH v. PULL.  There are a lot of
> items
> on this working group's plate, and we've made no progress on most.  The
> IMAP
> profile for Mobile devices, for one, just hasn't had focus. Getting
> those back on the radar screen and a game plan to get them done seems
> worth
> it to me.
> 
> 
I concur with Ted's position.

My view is that we are spending too much time on the push vs pull debate and
are losing sight of our overall goals.  One of these, that we saw in the
goals document is to be an alternative transport to MMS on wireless devices.
If we do not pick up the pace, the opportunity to extend Internet mail
correctly for this application will have passed us by.

As a result, I think that an interim meeting to get this focus is very
important.

Cheers,
Glenn.

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:35:56 -0700 (PDT)

> As a result, I think that an interim meeting to get this focus is very

What about an interim meeting in which push vs. pull is *NOT* part of the 
agenda, and discussion of such is out of order?

It is obvious that several of us have expressed a strong interest in the 
outcome of push vs. pull, and will vigilantly monitor for (and vigorously 
respond to!) any meeting activity which seems to impact their interests.

The inevitable result is that any meeting will be hijacked by the push vs. 
pull debate, to the deteriment of work on other issues, unless push vs. 
pull is ruled completely out of order and certain individuals are assured 
that no mischief will take place in their absence.

The solution, as I see it, is a strict time-out on push vs. pull.  I see 
several IETFs' worth of issues for Lemonade to resolve other than push vs. 
pull.  Why not set push vs. pull aside until after all the other issues 
are resolved?

-- Mark --

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

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

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:57:09 -0700

At 10:35 AM -0700 4/14/04, Mark Crispin wrote:

>  The solution, as I see it, is a strict time-out on push vs. pull. 
> I see several IETFs' worth of issues for Lemonade to resolve other 
> than push vs. pull.  Why not set push vs. pull aside until after 
> all the other issues are resolved?

I don't want to have push-vs-pull fester any longer -- we've hashed 
this out for a long time.  Keeping it open would be a mistake, in my 
opinion.  I agree with Ted and Glenn: let's resolve push-vs-pull, 
then have an interim to advance the forward-without-download, IMAP 
profile, and other crucial work areas.

I think everyone would stipulate that either push or pull could be 
made to work, and that there are excellent reasons arguing in favor 
of each, as well as serious concerns arguing against each.  It is a 
classic engineering trade-off.   I may be overly optimistic, but I 
think we have rough consensus now to go with pull.  If I'm right, we 
can start work on the next steps right away, and have some progress 
before the interim.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Citizens for corrupt government, unclean water, higher taxes,
unsafe streets, and poor schools.