Re: [imap5] Beep

[Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 09:30:51AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >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.

SCTP seems like a great idea apart from the difficulty bootstrapping
support - you need more than just application-level support.  BEEP
suffers a bit from the "you need a less-common library to implement
it" problem too - but at least libraries seem pretty common.

It's hard to argue with everything over 443 from a perspective of
"just f'n well works for users" though.

Bron.