Subject: [lemonade] profile-bis review

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:26:09 +0200

I notice that 3.1 now requires BURL imap, as opposed to BURL. That 
breaks my code, which only provides BURL 
imap://prearranged.trusted.blah, ie. it can only catenate within the 
trust domain, not from arbitrary IMAP servers across the net.

3.1 also requires QUICKSTART, which I'd rather drop. I sort of like 
QUICSTART, but I like the idea of concluding Lemonade even more and 
QUICKSTART doesn't buy us very much. It saves roundtrips (and some 
bytes) when submitting messages, but IMO that's insignificant. There 
aren't very many messages, and the user does not have to wait - the 
client can finish submitting in the background while the user reads 
some more mail, replies to something else, etc.

3.2... I've mixed feelings about some of these extensions. Oh well.

4.6 contains a typo. $lt; should be &lt;.

6 could say that clients should do SRV lookups to find their Submit and 
IMAP servers, absent any explicit configuration of course. Why doesn't 
it?

8.5.2.2 contains an awful typo - the notice which says 'this notice will 
disappear' uses mismatched <> signs ;)

12 omits the changes between versions 4 and 5.

Have a good weekend.

Arnt

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

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:06:34 +0100

Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> bytes) when submitting messages, but IMO that's insignificant.

I actually disagree that this is insignificant. Not very many clients 
keep persistent SMTP connections.

> There aren't very many messages, and the user does not have to wait - 
> the client can finish submitting in the background while the user 
> reads some more mail, replies to something else, etc.

After reviewing the QUICKSTART document I think that it should not be 
included in the Lemonade Profile Bis, because it is tricky to implement 
and thus very easy to get wrong.

However I would suggest that the WG continues working on this document.

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:45:20 +0100

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>
> I actually disagree that this is insignificant. Not very many clients keep
> persistent SMTP connections.

It occurred to me this morning that a good slogan for QUICKSTART is
"makes SMTP as fast as HTTP POST".

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
FAIR ISLE: WEST OR NORTHWEST 5 TO 7, DECREASING 4 OR 5, BACKING SOUTHWEST
LATER. MODERATE OR ROUGH, OCCASIONALLY VERY ROUGH IN WEST. SQUALLY SHOWERS.
MODERATE OR GOOD.

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:01:19 +0200

> keep persistent SMTP connections.

You keep saying that as if it makes any difference.

I've implemented persistent SMTP connections in a MUA and it doesn't 
save much. The SMTP server times out in a few minutes (2821 says five), 
and most users take a little while to compose the next message. Very 
few people compose and send more than 12 messages per hour.

Arnt

---

From: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:39:23 -0700

Joking aside, anyone think this MUST be in Profile-bis?  Alternately,
anyone think it MUST NOT be in Profile-bis? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Finch [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:45 AM
To: Alexey Melnikov
Cc: Lemonade WG
Subject: Re: [lemonade] Inclusion of QUICKSTART in Lemonade Profile-bis

Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/ FAIR ISLE: WEST OR
NORTHWEST 5 TO 7, DECREASING 4 OR 5, BACKING SOUTHWEST LATER. MODERATE
OR ROUGH, OCCASIONALLY VERY ROUGH IN WEST. SQUALLY SHOWERS.
MODERATE OR GOOD.

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:13:20 -0700

At 5:01 PM +0200 4/17/07, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

>  most users take a little while to compose the next message. Very 

Users sometimes draft messages when off-line, which are sent in a 
batch when next connected.  Also, some clients optionally batch sent 
messages anyway.  For example, I have my client set such that when I 
hit 'send'/'queue' the message is added to the outgoing queue, which 
is processed every 10-20 minutes (depending on account).  That 
usually gives me a few minutes to re-open the message and edit 
things, which is why I like it.

But I'd think saving round-trips and reducing latency is much more 
important when messages are sent one-by-one.  Especially if the 
client isn't receiving mail at the same time (for example, the user 
sends a message but the interesting mailboxes are already resynched), 
since that's when the user is most aware of connection times, 
off-hook status, etc.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
I love the smell of excessive quoting in the morning.
                                      --Steve Dorner

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:16:00 -0700

At 3:06 PM +0100 4/17/07, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

>  After reviewing the QUICKSTART document I think that it should not 
> be included in the Lemonade Profile Bis, because it is tricky to 
> implement and thus very easy to get wrong.

Which document?  I believe there are two, one that saves more 
round-trips but is trickier (the one that mixes TLS and SMTP 
initialization) and one that is simpler.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
To err is human, to moo bovine.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:21:55 -0700

At 4:39 PM -0700 4/23/07, Eric Burger wrote:

>  anyone think this MUST be in Profile-bis?  Alternately,

When we require server support for a feature in profile, we increase 
the server implementation burden, but decrease client complexity 
(assuming the feature has enough value that clients will want to use 
it).  It's tricky to get this right.  I'm not sure we're ready to 
decide yet regarding SMTP quickstart.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
All we need is a couple of facts.  We already know the truth.
                            --"Gee" on the TV show _Homicide_

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:31:41 +0100

Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> save much.

Have you used TLS in your tests?

> The SMTP server times out in a few minutes (2821 says five), and most 
> users take a little while to compose the next message. Very few people 
> compose and send more than 12 messages per hour.

I think you've just made my argument for me: SMTP is essentially 1 
message per connection, so any reduction in number of round trips and/or 
bandwidth that can be done during establishment of an SMTP session would 
help over time.

If you are arguing that bandwidth savings are not significant when 
compared to bandwidth savings achievable for IMAP, I might even agree 
with you.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:04:07 +0100

Randall Gellens wrote:

> Which document?  I believe there are two,

When I reviewed it, there was only 1.

> one that saves more round-trips but is trickier (the one that mixes 
> TLS and SMTP initialization) and one that is simpler.

I might change my mind, but I would rather not include either one.
(I need to review the simple one, maybe it is simple enough to be ready 
for inclusion).

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:35:23 +0100

> > > and thus very easy to get wrong.

I've tried to make the tricky workflow clearer in the -B draft. Most of
the difficulty is (unfortunately) at the client end, particularly
pipelined STARTTLS and the working of the server capability cache. I plan
an updated draft which makes it clear that the cache is optional, i.e.
that the -B draft can accommodate simple clients with almost the same
performance as the -A draft.

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND PLYMOUTH: SOUTHWESTERLY VEERING NORTHEASTERLY 3 OR
4, INCREASING 6 OR 7. SLIGHT INCREASING MODERATE OR ROUGH. RAIN OR DRIZZLE.
MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR IN THAMES AND DOVER.

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:47:16 +0200

Just one thing I'd like to make clear:

I do not think that QUICKSTART is bad as such. I just think its savings 
are insignificant in lemonade's part of the world. Lemonade clients 
don't do very much SMTP (cf. Eric Burger's .sig), and what little they 
do can be done in the background, without keeping the user waiting.

There are other SMTP clients, and I'll review QUICKSTART eventually.

Arnt