Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 15 November 2016 07:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0429129A18 for <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:31:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MEmYRKuw92pM for <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:30:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A9E2129A14 for <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:30:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id a197so148007733wmd.0 for <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:30:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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 with SMTP id j141mr2417246lfg.78.1479195055060; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:30:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:30:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <56DA516EAC53C07E3F453BA6@JcK-HP8200> <> <> <5F4EE3F805C40EF25D1E0E57@JcK-HP8200> <> <> <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:30:14 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Ned Freed <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: John C Klensin <>, Alexey Melnikov <>,, "" <>, Doug Royer <>
Subject: Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IMAP extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <> 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