Subject: RE: [lemonade] Interim proposed agenda

From: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:32:04 -0500

Future delivery with revocation certainly could be dependant upon a push/pull decision. Depends somewhat on where messages are long-term stored and where the trigger events are stored and who triggers the eventual submission. 

IMAP Channel is somewhat tied to the URLauth components of Pull, if would be useful to know the direction before investing much more in channel.

I think we need to have a critical mass of people at a face to face meeting to witness the official coin flip....  Honestly, both approaches can work, both have drawbacks and advantages.  Indecision is the worst option.

Greg V.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 1:40 PM
To: Glenn Parsons
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [lemonade] Interim proposed agenda

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Glenn Parsons wrote:
> At our proposed interim meeting, my goal is to have already decided push vs
> pull.

That may be optimistic, especially for a final decision.  The two sides 
seem very far apart.  Given the overall hardening of attitudes, I don't 
think that a quick decision is going to help the WG move forward.  In a 
worse case scenario, we could have such a poisoned atmosphere that the 
entire effort will collapse.

Can't we have a cooling off period in which push vs. pull is set aside, 
and we work on the other issues instead?  As far as I can tell, none of 
the Lemonade charter items other than "forward without down" depend upon a 
decision of push vs. pull.

Perhaps after solving all the other problems (and with the benefit of 
hindsight and cooling off), the question of push vs. pull will seem 
unimportant and easy to solve.

-- Mark --

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

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

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

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:54:14 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg) wrote:
> Future delivery with revocation certainly could be dependant upon a 
> push/pull decision. Depends somewhat on where messages are long-term 
> stored and where the trigger events are stored and who triggers the 
> eventual submission.

I think that we can safely stipulate that future delivery with revocation 
will long-term store the messages on the IMAP server.

Storage of trigger events is tougher.  I personally believe that trigger 
events belong with either with the submit server or perhaps with some 
third entity (e.g. ACAP).  It is quite orthogonal to the scope of IMAP, 
and leaves IMAP vulnerable to the charge that it is a monolith like 
Exchange, only inferior.

> IMAP Channel is somewhat tied to the URLauth components of Pull, if 
> would be useful to know the direction before investing much more in 
> channel.

I think that CHANNEL and URLAUTH are useful no matter what is decided 
about push vs. pull; and therefore there shouldn't be a dependency.

-- Mark --