IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 08 February 2017 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 922E71294D8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:47:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VHRxGwuk79oX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:47:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x230.google.com (mail-qk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB3481294FF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id u25so108749499qki.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 18:47:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=19rU2uFz7E8ta5+oxsfnGd3N0oDEUhpXukm5KKLE5s4=; b=OS2G/77OX0pQjAOtIjiOw/5Kbk8TJxy5CQZ+zPS7VuX3EaGI1240yvdTfgPi+pca1k QVXqJFcPPwudXtCL6drU5PmIVrSslY0e4Xj871pMhIlTgOk56mWKq+sBLNzg6oEAhccu ixqF7qWQ42ZBK1UMsfW9Z8P5vsRku3qlAtx2hHuWL7byuqeiQojt6ZJSMSyaOFHjifKZ F6+1HAb/lrSAA821vv3eCG2QuKnwG/tO/coTL3eMyhUDv76ayuV8N9XYElUYdLaHhhDX +eJdLInUeg8jN6LuhdlsBtYRa8oivzIUFxr0YV2a38gaY8vGe66mn3qXoOSaIHV0VU7j kNgg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=19rU2uFz7E8ta5+oxsfnGd3N0oDEUhpXukm5KKLE5s4=; b=a4ZQEXPdCqOag0MOeQI26g4JDPmIV8+zVE7YVvAzZgq+tReKzMbX4hR2bQvLiF86XS amgITKTE4sWzk4z3DYc9U1hwU6PZrrIiYA/rnx4Oi6pCk/DNagH8fO7R2Z/d/TkTEp1C DLSpCLkqNIKKUo8YsvNUja0IaNsHujg4rUpT7ICo5fWWbRmNRkPYVoAuSgxuT00E+RPq fFWP+VvMXPFZj4KruNplHI/oz6V5usb2nWSFhV0jFz2N6nFKeIH/jtzOBsDTgrBc0dkV y4XGQKUwUDoHqGYWwmfRb229dCP5z1/BjRx3qNbklo75SzzyFM23CsjTv5d5R3SwLYa9 QdPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mg1FLZV7l2n4Xf2Aovkc+UKIso1u1CdA/fC8rvfQkGtlxSpp0VDJ4S8EUIPLQRFg==
X-Received: by 10.55.83.71 with SMTP id h68mr16800259qkb.259.1486522062855; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 18:47:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.20.229] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e3sm5071948qtg.7.2017.02.07.18.47.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Feb 2017 18:47:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <3A1DFD1E-E675-47CB-AE54-756C6CD5FF2E@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7F01E586-A2EB-4970-8B1A-4FCAFFB4BACD"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:47:39 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1A1381DB-DF79-4FC8-88F4-60A0AF4FE3CA@cursive.net>
To: Joe Hildebrand <hildjj@cursive.net>
References: <CAMQk0F-6CFLHKvTxSaPV20Lp-hVOSSk_WrHOGq6-LOUO8aDNww@mail.gmail.com> <m2poitydi9.wl-randy@psg.com> <9D66E5E7619E1C55F1DEB959@PSB> <1A1381DB-DF79-4FC8-88F4-60A0AF4FE3CA@cursive.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/CTZDTUOLut2-FSVthc1txqaM-wU>
Cc: jmap@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 02:47:45 -0000

On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:47 PM, Joe Hildebrand <hildjj@cursive.net> wrote:
> TL;DR summary: Just say 'yes'.

+1

If this winds up having a clean design, it will probably be enough of an improvement to be well worth deploying.   That's what it takes for a protocol to be successful.   I am not yet convinced that it will be a clean design, but if we don't try to design it, it won't matter.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email