Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity
Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Mon, 13 February 2017 19:52 UTC
Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
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 5016812989C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:52:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cridland.net
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 J5YJzJdgp_zo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:52:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x233.google.com (mail-wr0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::233]) (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 0D58912986D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:52:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x233.google.com with SMTP id 89so157991821wrr.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:52:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cv+T+WNVovI/7qmnobA/lN7r+fnLKnmaaJNkuJ/zmTs=; b=jb3UbsrL2DqXHxDIXkc8pQ05k0v9SJOk1QRmfOWIaSuQCf6Yl0WrD1To4dWEuFkMCx VlcIWHDcLI9OBEGmuxRgnKN1BJXgJmPnJWsHhlZ/1gpvy10u178oEYiwWDtlE4lD4hxS oKAuki/ZqgEkTgm+igjmWoXWC9DL0NcW8UX3g=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cv+T+WNVovI/7qmnobA/lN7r+fnLKnmaaJNkuJ/zmTs=; b=qieX0pJTiQsuYxIe9LEZm68j+CFx2xzkpttkyOvK/oVy8iqoHHxZsEwcyMHGQxvyZq X3GKjzNoSuKWDYZMu83UhdwjBn4PvAfGCq8gyJHaQkf3ayKdKLPgWs5tPxKrg7N2R+5Z abqPh3ZbBBbJThmqnKdE6Jacq9FHkCYVgSPusgt9U/ZyuHLBHOwYCplpaCMi+Vqd6JNg yicSWi010tO7a3MttzPTPu9SdkMexd5+Vb6usd5gMURLsIb5SqHEK3j96pStlZOB2CtV AySxnwfTALJzeLnaNYXlxAPiQq7X3gyQbRl9DRaodH54IFUPC72Pfbyg/gpcoIsU1eNG nQZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39ljKmB32gS54orlUUwPEfvnpI3Y5lRmJE4FvwumM95tyCCsfGLvvXOHuynBrM8Z7eSls+Eze8wdrnb2W022
X-Received: by 10.223.152.2 with SMTP id v2mr21418025wrb.109.1487015540436; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:52:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.136.199 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:52:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E555C5F4-2B61-4705-B62C-998769E5FC1D@fugue.com>
References: <3b955910-12d0-2c56-0dc2-30279f98aea5@isode.com> <19fabdd7-77c5-fc13-616e-26d39d2f23df@isode.com> <20170208142241.GB84460@mx4.yitter.info> <217b1d1b-adba-2ebb-30ca-600f8dc77246@isode.com> <32D2801528D191A01AD4D3B2@PSB> <2fa724eb-18ba-b818-6a01-a07db5a9a9a4@isode.com> <01QANBYPRC140005AQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <1162BF5A37921B1555FF29F9@PSB> <CAKHUCzyQSTiLXg9W+ePwwm=B01TNgCN+L729pzP1iZvqG3Kweg@mail.gmail.com> <E555C5F4-2B61-4705-B62C-998769E5FC1D@fugue.com>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 19:52:19 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzzToOM4YAeeJTdiqx4av2JMuFP1Vgo1-XLVQJBs11vuiA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/L-EMRbNEvaVTa087iM7EGwdJf2M>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <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: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 19:52:25 -0000
On 13 February 2017 at 18:48, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2017, at 12:17 PM, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> wrote: > > If JMAP is to supplant IMAP - and I think that's a worthy goal even if > its likelihood remains a matter for debate - then JMAP has to support > the same model. > > The model of IMAP is that: > > * Each message resides in a single mailbox, > * Each message has a set of independent flags, > * Each message is immutable. > > > This would be unfortunate. The "mailbox" paradigm really doesn't work > well—as someone mentioned earlier in this thread, it makes synchronization > needlessly slow and painful, and it also restricts the end user's ability to > tag messages with more than one meaning. > I'm not claiming it's a good model, or even (see John's messages) that this precludes any other model being made to fit. But I *am* asserting this is the model around which IMAP was designed. In fact, I could go further and suggest that at least some portions of the IMAP design assume that a mailbox is embodied by a single file, but workarounds for that issue have been long-implemented in the community. And other models are possible to expose with greater or lesser degrees of fidelity. When gmail, for example, exposes its mailstore over IMAP, it does so by playing fast and loose (and often loose) with the IMAP model. So messages are visible in multiple mailboxes, but there's no method exposed within IMAP that allows a client to understand that - to the client, they're distinct messages with the same content. Flags (or labels, which are exposed as mailbox names) change on all the copies in step, but the copies remain copies, from an IMAP perspective. Within JMAP, the semantics available are a proper superset of IMAP, so while the IMAP model can be exposed, so can a more gmail-like concept wherein the same message can appear in multiple mailboxes, for example. This means, as a casual observation, that the JMAP model (and therefore protocol) can be used to expose nearly every mailstore available. Curiously, this was the driver behind some of IMAP's design choices at the time. I'd recommend, if you're interested in the differences between the JMAP and IMAP models, to go look at the https://jmap.io site, which explains them very thoroughly. I'd note in passing that I was deeply skeptical of JMAP initially, and I've been persuaded by solid technical argument as well as market pressures. I'd be curious about concrete issues rather than hypothetical issues. Dave.
- Re: WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) Dave Crocker
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Adrien de Croy
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Dave Crocker
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Gren Elliot
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Randy Bush
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Dave Crocker
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Gren Elliot
- Fwd: Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Proto… Gren Elliot
- Re: [Jmap] service discovery, was WG Review: JSON… John Levine
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access P… Dave Crocker
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access P… Randy Bush
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access P… John C Klensin
- Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail Access P… Adrien de Croy
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Neil Jhaveri
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access P… Gren Elliot
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Dave Crocker
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Dave Cridland
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Alexey Melnikov
- Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail Acc… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… John C Klensin
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… Dave Crocker
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Ted Lemon
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… Ted Hardie
- Re: WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) -… John Levine
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Pete Resnick
- Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail Access P… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail Access P… Dave Crocker
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… ned+ietf
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… John Levine
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… John C Klensin
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… Dave Cridland
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… Dave Crocker
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Ted Lemon
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… John C Klensin
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… John C Klensin
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Dave Cridland
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… Dave Cridland
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (… Ted Lemon
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… ned+ietf
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail… John C Klensin