IETF Logo Mail Archive

[imap5] Beep

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Thu, 10 May 2012 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E86921F8557 for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.567
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8kL1BcjAt00A for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE5921F845D for <imap5@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so2183547pbc.31 for <imap5@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZqAdMQXAHxsKwloISORIcSQnKmp5QjfaReaG/CzW60E=; b=RwqcOPBfqOvw6kJtKbrI6j3mBxfNCQ+pDHyJiz/+w881MQI2uh+ph/ji4oHwsMiOOf faYaVqRWtibFhbBrXuuWoM4UZhI+N9Yx0KdjMYQ6CJV2abHSAlHfVz/6lY1x40LEo9uK ftJQ3VoiShNt5zGnwH14gROao2jjBHo/UlJDKujKEjLzg5mpaGwhI7gXU2kCbN0AksEl r0mPl4Y6D0zCN4AYnX4eJ2poVPzEUxZW0fk3i3tnmKEJXxiF07GTqeA8cMrijTHRTMSp LMkYp8iDftP397Mi6DSRTcsIkmUdPzWSABXRSCaUTHvWF/Z0UWToCOJbWdFzxh/qUPWg ZNqw==
Received: by 10.68.211.227 with SMTP id nf3mr11801158pbc.5.1336665434145; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-58-62.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net. [67.127.58.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id py5sm9897766pbb.1.2012.05.10.08.57.11 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 10 May 2012 08:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FABE552.5010304@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 08:57:06 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
References: <833EE8EEE88E4ADE5CDDDADB@caldav.corp.apple.com> <4F3835A1.7060804@qbik.com> <B764BD8C8B6047E659EABBE2@caldav.corp.apple.com> <4F397212.1030107@qbik.com> <20120213210805.GB13029@launde.brong.net> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202151405550.30682@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <1329315552.1444.140661036879893@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4F3BBFA4.8010107@isode.com> <1329316981.8310.140661036883625@webmail.messagingengine.com> <66F68487BF0EED4BA7D767E2410F30B3EFF259456A@FRSPX100.fr01.awl.atosorigin.net> <20120215211301.GA16253@launde.brong.net> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202161126410.31357@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202161126410.31357@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 May 2012 09:15:27 -0700
Cc: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5@ietf.org>
Subject: [imap5] Beep
X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imap5>, <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imap5>
List-Post: <mailto:imap5@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5>, <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 15:57:31 -0000

On 2/16/2012 3:30 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> I think BEEP is insane. Masses of complexity just to avoid using multiple
> concurrent TCP connections.


Having been involved in creating beep, I'm feeling obligated to respond 
on this.  I won't be saying anything that isn't pretty obvious, so the 
real disparity is almost certainly personal interpretations of degree:

    Multiple simultaneous TCP connections are highly problematic.

    Especially for new protocols.

The real world of today's Internet makes it difficult to ensure proper 
operation through firewalls and application gateways.

It would be very nice to fix this underlying problem, but until it's 
fixed, then a new application that uses new TCP ports is not likely to 
succeed.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email