Subject: Re: [lemonade] About draft-gulbrandsen-imap-notify-02

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:56:05 +0100

Randall Gellens writes:
> At 11:00 AM +0100 2/22/07, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>>  Randall Gellens writes:
>>>  It also opens a second timing hole during disconnection when the 
>>>  client will not get any notifications.
>>
>>  No, that hole is there anyway if you look at the grand scheme of 
>>  things. Suppose a notification is sent to a laptop client just as 
>>  the client is reaching for the laptop lid, and is displayed 
>>  on-screen as the lid is closing, already almost closed, too late 
>>  for the user to notice. The client receives the event, the user 
>>  not.
>
> In this case, I think the client has likely received the event.  I 
> wasn't thinking so much of the user reading any sort of notice as I 
> was about the client receiving and processing events (to decide if it 
> should resynch then or later, and to know if it is out of synch in a 
> mailbox).

Doesn't really matter. That decision to resync/read may reasonably rest 
with the user, ie. we cannot base our work on an assumption that the 
decision is NOT made by the user.

Therefore we have the timing hole, and must learn to live with it.

>>  In any case, if I've understood the general attitude here correctly, 
>>  we don't care too much about it: Stray lost notifications are okay 
>>  as long as there aren't too many.
>
> Yes, we have (rightly, I think) concluded that we should focus on 
> notifications that are non-critical (since notifications that are in 
> themselves sufficient to resynch require reliability and increased 
> protection against eavesdropping and alteration).

I think we agree but I see the whole thing rather differently ;)

Arnt

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade