Re: [imapext] Request to form a new WG: JMAP

[Julien ÉLIE <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

> (2) Some of us believe, at least on some days, that a key reason
> why SMTP, the message formats that started with RFC 822, POP3,
> and IMAP have survived against a large number of proprietary and
> other SDO alternatives have been precisely because they operate
> in plain text, with all but IMAP using very simple
> command-argument or name:value syntax.  Are we ready to give
> that up?  Do we really need interoperability between a server
> and a captive Webmail interface?  Arguably, standards of that
> type are part of the province of the IETF only if someone is
> contemplating generic webmail clients that can interact with the
> servers of more than one organization.

My two cents here:  someone proposed 2 years ago a similar model for 
NNTP.  It was named... JNTP (Json News Transfer Protocol).

Here is its current "specification" (in French):
   http://www.nemoweb.net/?page_id=75

with even an RFC-like format:
   http://www.nemoweb.net/?p=1295


And, as John hinted at, people get then stuck in exchanges between an 
NNTP server and a captive webnews interface like:
   http://news.nemoweb.net/

Since 2014, no much move for JNTP, which is still used only by his creator.
Like SMTP and IMAP, NNTP operates in plain text.  A great advantage over 
other alternatives.



> Again, just questions, but questions I think we need to ask
> carefully before standardizing yet another alternative way to do
> much the same thing.

+1

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« – Vous ramassez des champignons sans les connaître ?
   – Et alors ? Ce n'est pas pour les manger mais pour les vendre. »