IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Mon, 13 February 2017 17:17 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 885151295EA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:17:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 qu9kIxQbZ2KB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:17:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (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 74C8F1296FB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:17:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id v77so99095331wmv.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:17:19 -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; bh=C/zy10gXStTpI9Cni5mk5fkDZBayW3koRjGSboyU/A0=; b=d45D01hPZJQor9TI0WusfTz8tW7TKzYarQyLAb7IRvSek1JnW9RQjAxfCf436b7l9t W7SI6nSi3/oCiSOSz+RbNNGueAn4qAu7SxNAPjHRCG1mTfqo2IwyuqxkgwuCDifL+xIn Xo+kv9YtExoAwrJ86x8ePv6ncXspV4Jassp18=
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; bh=C/zy10gXStTpI9Cni5mk5fkDZBayW3koRjGSboyU/A0=; b=DkoMlPxqyaQv7DVkeF1r9vf/6B4VDcRuTJjIJ8w5OY6AN3jXXZxm4Okzl1FBRfM7iD sAZY3k7cCLmK+B9vDj5n7gtJ4oivuPK38zAJZmkPfK0U9mrk9s+Edb9xEuCbzqUJ8GyX B4nxS+y1toNWhqTOZ3rQN1l70vj8EafeHGslnmDv7+LdWcB8FFjYU9gF3QkpCFGLDd1f czzJEWZcHfQ5jrI6czOfUhmLHM+ebzaWKOySRha3FpnGIIKZ1AXa2AnmVQvZg/c72we+ egUeLYlcoH0tJPSXtLRPJ2xB/Q0ZiHvNQRdK3WUJTk6HGOX5OP2XeYMI6lYyMeAAavoZ UnTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39ly1izq1VR7b0dbPCMvYlrYXUlwKVmWSJyEPf7bhfM6h30ohRSYvXzP2fuFJ1iUT/S7S+y6iiB3i/xbCOa2
X-Received: by 10.28.99.69 with SMTP id x66mr38270098wmb.91.1487006237736; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:17:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.136.199 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:17:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1162BF5A37921B1555FF29F9@PSB>
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>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:17:17 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzyQSTiLXg9W+ePwwm=B01TNgCN+L729pzP1iZvqG3Kweg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tTNFdQdHUAfBzAihwxQXr9b57Xw>
Cc: 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 17:17:27 -0000

On 12 February 2017 at 20:15, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> Yes.  See above.  But note that "JMAP replaces IMAP" requires
> that it support identical functionality, be a superset of IMAP
> function, or drop only the functions that no one is using or
> cares about.  Note that I'm talking about functionality, not
> syntax

I don't think this is true.

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.

(One could argue that other metadata exists, given ANNOTATE, but
nobody [to a reasonable approximation] uses ANNOTATE).

Gmail is an example of a case where the model of IMAP doesn't fit the
underlying data model - this is a shame, as IMAP's original design
took considerable effort to fit the wide, existing models of the time.
JMAP, on the other hand, can cope with both gmail style labels and
IMAP-style mailboxes, by stated design.

So I'm confident that, while your statement seems incorrect to me, the
corrected statement would be satisfied.

Dave.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email