Re: [imap5] Beep

------ Original Message ------
From: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
To: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@gmail.com>;"Tony Finch" <dot@dotat.at>
Cc: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5@ietf.org>
Sent: 11/05/2012 11:03:26 a.m.
Subject: Re: [imap5] Beep
>  
>There was recently a long and heated discussion about the same issue 
>on the HTTP WG list. 
>  
>I think it's a really bad idea to migrate everything to port 443, and 
>would be a huge step backwards for the internet. 
>  
>Firstly, there are many intermediaries that snoop into port 443 (break 
>into the SSL with spoofed certs etc) and expect to find HTTP in there. 
>This is done because there's no supported way for an intermediary to 
>perform its necessary functions on https. IN fact we're looking into 
>options to put the intermediary in the picture, since there are many 
>valid bona fide reasons why the content requires inspection (e.g. 
>malware). Especially since more and more of the web is moving to https 
>(FB, Gmail etc etc). 
>  
>the arguments for such a proposal are things like 
>  
>* 443 gets through firewalls (response - now they may, probably not so 
>in future). 
>* everyone should be encrypting everything anyway (response - not 
>true, many situations require transparency, and forcing burden of 
>SSL/TLS deployment everywhere is highly problematic) 
>  
>Basically my position is moving to port 443 for other protocols is an 
>escalation in the arms-race between client / server vendors and 
>intermediary vendors. There must be a better way. 
>  
>BEEP may seem insane. It kinda is, but it's doing what it has to given 
>the limitations. However specifying some new protocol such as IMAP5 to 
>go over BEEP _would_ be insane. 

actually I'm confusing BEEP with something else (BOSH) ... strike that 
final comment... I don't know enough about it to comment.

Adrien

>
>  
>Adrien 
>  
>
>------ Original Message ------ 
>From: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@gmail.com> 
>To: "Tony Finch" <dot@dotat.at> 
>Cc: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5@ietf.org> 
>Sent: 11/05/2012 4:30:51 a.m. 
>Subject: Re: [imap5] Beep 
>>
>>
>>On 5/10/2012 9:22 AM, Tony Finch wrote:  
>>>Dave Crocker<dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:  
>>>>
>>>>   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. 
>>>
>>>Well they aren't great for congestion control and window sizing, but 
>>
>>a multiplexing mechanism always has those issues, where the 
>>underlying issue is making sure that a problem in one sub-channel 
>>does not block the others. 
>>multiplexing adds complexity. it's always better to find a workable 
>>solution that does not require it. 
>>
>>>middleboxes should only be a problem if you are doing FTP-style 
>>>layering violations. 
>>
>>I don't have a guess about what layering violation you think FTP 
>>does... 
>>
>>So concurrent connections are normal for HTTP and IMAP and 
>>I was careful to say "new" protocols. And I think I was careful to 
>>cite use of different port numbers. (I certainly meant to be.) 
>>Parallel identical connections for protocols that already punch 
>>through firewalls are in a very different position of strength than 
>>new protocols. However even these are problematic for gateways. On 
>>the average, we don't design for concern about gateways, but the 
>>issue still exists. 
>>
>>
>>>Everything over port 443. 
>>
>>well, that's obviously far better than everything over 80... 
>>And while I mean that ironically, there's a kernel of reality to it: 
>>Beep was produced in response to the clear trend to put everything 
>>over http. Beep is lower cost, by quite a bit. 
>>It then adds back some cost with the multiplexing mechanism, of 
>>course. But that's why it replicates established multiplexing 
>>mechanisms from lower layers. 
>>
>>For reference, I'm not lobbying for it's use, here. I don't have an 
>>opinion for the IMAPnextgen discussion, but wanted to clarify why 
>>beep was a long way from crazy. 
>>d/ -- Dave Crocker bbiw.net 
>>_______________________________________________ imap5 mailing list 
>>imap5@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5 
>
>_______________________________________________ 
>imap5 mailing list 
>imap5@ietf.org 
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5 