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

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Wed, 08 February 2017 12:31 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 73696129A04 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 04:31:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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] autolearn=unavailable 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 xO_nGHEUygzu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 04:31:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x230.google.com (mail-wm0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c: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 E0DF9128E18 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 04:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x230.google.com with SMTP id r141so185156486wmg.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 04:31:04 -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=LwDgrJGQ+kH1QTxJnMZiIzUp5zyfao20oFw9nMa7WLo=; b=kNt0pfyHVXO4ZWE3b6gef0zNIoQ9lXaM1DOZ2MV9p6u7zhapRUMqgGW8PQiPJyqQZ4 FK/TyqKq5dFL5Tb7ew87HTmSg4afxPt2cLQ+FgcoxoM09Lc1PgnntAWBNK04SDC2M4tn S0Wwxmks9N0NYfUZQpjmia4XR/YxB+4o2pcyY=
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=LwDgrJGQ+kH1QTxJnMZiIzUp5zyfao20oFw9nMa7WLo=; b=LyLUuxC4pK7kQcPMvPxQjK3bw9se3hC1lpfcjCAyoYxwMG79eOblXUbGBeBvgxeWkT PGhHHOqHEwzquDKJP/hLV8BCRKYmXFcYVFxahNBTyhxm01zbsRrYeETdbMuFUQ6mxxsl 1H0K0KCU3B2YBoE6LiofFnMDg2ZOw2wov16/aw4J7GEQmJxPyfbGFOokyfKbYh/JvOhQ sWsriUb1HhKkjtFQKJN3seC/WLvCa3dVC2azPu66Uhygo3P/VRL9dTPBub/+b0kliMX/ Fua5wcjCZHGvmQ9cNZ3Nb3eMBqCWEjU4R5Ei8TgkGMVoKqqY33ieAauK/nyNUYXgw6Ku TJhA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39myhMiW7iG0WBTkaAcH9fx5vhNhtjM2lSrCKLlyyY03dSFhhdAth5kzfg4FJIa1kV5XCHq6L3uDnRXDTtA6
X-Received: by 10.28.191.79 with SMTP id p76mr16948651wmf.21.1486557063415; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 04:31:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.136.199 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 04:31:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D983A02B-B530-454D-A8A6-9D9CF432D31E@gmail.com>
References: <CAMQk0F-6CFLHKvTxSaPV20Lp-hVOSSk_WrHOGq6-LOUO8aDNww@mail.gmail.com> <m2poitydi9.wl-randy@psg.com> <9D66E5E7619E1C55F1DEB959@PSB> <1A1381DB-DF79-4FC8-88F4-60A0AF4FE3CA@cursive.net> <b482dda6-2db9-a64b-e31c-f1c07ab92269@dcrocker.net> <1486523704.3711423.873904592.78C4EAA8@webmail.messagingengine.com> <D983A02B-B530-454D-A8A6-9D9CF432D31E@gmail.com>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:31:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzxgv2UO99UfSvgSZOEkgnu722GiBCskP_DfZio5WDzBfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/z5074iW2g9S6KUc2LXVaLvldT6w>
Cc: jmap@ietf.org, Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmail.com>, 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 12:31:07 -0000

On 8 February 2017 at 07:26, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> That’s good to know. I’m wondering if implementing a generic email client
> (rather than a specific “gmail” or “live” client) isn’t becoming ever
> harder. With so many older and newer services, a client has to support pop3,
> imap, smtp, EWS, ActiveSync, and maybe a few of the others you mentioned.
> This effort proposes to add yet another one.
>

It does; but as someone who has had to implement IMAP from both sides,
I think it's worthwhile to revisit IMAP's space and look at a
green-field rewrite.

JMAP works well particularly for web-based, client-centric
development; that's a space I've seen a lot of, and particularly a
considerable amount of more innovative deployments of existing
protocol work (such as XMPP, which is also very web-friendly).

I would suspect that if we can pull JMAP together and see reasonable
deployment, we'll see an increasing demand for its use for all manner
of things we have yet to think of.

It seems to be well-thought through for mobile, too.

While I agree, with feeling, that writing a generic desktop MUA has
become increasingly hard in recent years, I also note that this isn't
what consumers seem to want either. Consumers respond much better to
Web and/or Mobile - and JMAP makes it considerably simpler to write
either.

TL;DR: Yes.

Dave.