Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP
Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 15 November 2016 07:31 UTC
Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0429129A18 for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:31:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-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 (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 MEmYRKuw92pM for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:30:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (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 9A9E2129A14 for <imapext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:30:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id a197so148007733wmd.0 for <imapext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:30:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Q6YXsj6vc7xAZauhMddPbUhWPzCLlgQPyN7YuY4Nc4A=; b=c17wnAtwzcMpkh/NDTKvkNh4AUKNFGQYRzNb1tCDcz6M0VtArUa5yfwvpwrlqjTTrx BjpxWrQ0Z1zZPEc2nD28UiGzQwzpasY/RAMbVVSkCR2pq7ijQ2v74KoHtmedBvkIHiFD Su7v3YZJLNgjjtXbL6LqNNo42/NZFuKcTJH64oAL6fy44JdkA4MOzEFYuEZ40hnVLNdv DOlGtsznhltDxI+qH2cBTcdLZYhjx7QOr17UrYM82Tr/ymog+36SjotHIL6jENms5Wq9 22MhM3jTlT+Luh191RETSXdTAN3eYBlINTUjoDZFdF/W66qImakX+gV5KVsA8hDneloc qL8w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Q6YXsj6vc7xAZauhMddPbUhWPzCLlgQPyN7YuY4Nc4A=; b=Bh52BGKJHwT8Qn5q/BEEyuJ1d+tBP6QrY3fjEKuIKrn5xiZxAqa/Ca6cs9Buo5B5yS qMGnsiX4wnwrVOfks6/AC7VpJHRDp8iQSXEG2urXofdT50QKIratJfzvl63BwvAyeuis xO9Ygvu1+Ayxbo+JdOx1Of4DP8qopVDEUYRCWBH0m0zu31YvHoC3bUlHU6ENk7CRg2Pm DolPC7xjAAkAdT7NtbfW9HKNt/yZEWa67BYYUrqRq2BBKqXROPK0Yoymz8VC4ULCHmpn sIs/s01kR7Ks8mQOPu0f7UONBzYWzGnrxqeyyZ/qrUPzPM4PcA+p5QAX2d0mfqtBzQ0y mn9A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdBBDvRIBlK48UjfNMs7PzPTdcKlC0WaGIRppCka1rxSsq3wXMaNrI5L+npCkOEmu0nwoc+1mysborHEg==
X-Received: by 10.25.210.147 with SMTP id j141mr2417246lfg.78.1479195055060; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:30:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.28.15 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:30:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <01Q7BOQC0GGA011H9Q@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <1478539079.1706686.780110457.75B1F9CF@webmail.messagingengine.com> <a786d82d-7134-c7bc-24ef-5dfb56e7bbac@isode.com> <56DA516EAC53C07E3F453BA6@JcK-HP8200> <58220833.4000806@gmail.com> <01Q73SYPHLDI011H9Q@mauve.mrochek.com> <5F4EE3F805C40EF25D1E0E57@JcK-HP8200> <01Q7B16YQ1IO011H9Q@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAPt1N1nOOCc-+dzgBOcUMVBZKOFP008h1f9kBmHquxZWcEmgtQ@mail.gmail.com> <01Q7BOQC0GGA011H9Q@mauve.mrochek.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:30:14 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1n0U0s-Pvyrj+sXCAsODFqHopwcv7VsPU0tynov7_oBRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/YKFLPf4pPRQBSzs5wIT-7HGB5T8>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org, "imapext@ietf.org" <imapext@ietf.org>, Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP
X-BeenThere: imapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IMAP extensions <imapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/imapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:imapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:31:01 -0000
Yup. The reason I keyed in on what you said is that I've had the same thought about IMAP for a long time--I would like to have a much less chatty sync process. On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote: >> I agree with almost everything you said here, Ned, except for the idea that >> offline isn't important. For those of us who travel internationally, being >> able to look up travel info on your phone before you have your >> international SIM is crucial, and this is just one example of a situation >> where this is important. > > There's a difference between being able to operate offline and a protocol > specifically designed to support offline operation. > > As you note, the former is still useful, but is, as Doug notes, mostly a matter > of client support. (Unfortunately, I suspect that as a practical matter you're > going to have ever-increasing difficulty getting client developers to > prioritize it.) > > To the extent it's a protocol issue, it's mostly a subset of the mobile > sync problem. > > Or, to put it another way, it seems the mobile sync problem has more > requirements and is more constrained than the offline sync problem. And for > better or worse, the design focus of IMAP was and is on the offline sync > problem. > > All that said, it's not entirely clear to me that the design focus of the > current crop of JMAP proposals is geared towards the mobile client sync problem > either. At least some of what I've seen seems more oriented towards support of > business workflows, which is a very different (and IMO much simpler) problem. > > Ned
- [imapext] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … John C Klensin
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ned Freed
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … John C Klensin
- Re: [imapext] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Adrien de Croy
- Re: [imapext] Request to form a new WG: JMAP Julien ÉLIE
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Doug Royer
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ned Freed
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … John C Klensin
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Doug Royer
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ned Freed
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … John C Klensin
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Neil Jenkins
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Tony Finch
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ned Freed
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ned Freed
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ted Lemon
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Doug Royer
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ted Lemon
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Bron Gondwana
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ned Freed
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ted Lemon
- [imapext] offline mode, was Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: … Tony Finch
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Doug Royer
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Bron Gondwana
- [imapext] Further discussions of JMAP Alexey Melnikov
- [imapext] I moved to jmap@ietf.org Doug Royer
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Request to form a new W… Jacob Palme
- Re: [imapext] offline mode, was Re: [ietf-smtp] F… Brandon Long