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

Ned Freed <> Tue, 15 November 2016 07:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2429212944D; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:02:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ycYK07uiOmpG; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:02:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E64FB1295DD; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:02:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:57:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:57:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:38:53 -0800
From: Ned Freed <>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 15 Nov 2016 06:49:10 +0900" <>
References: <> <> <56DA516EAC53C07E3F453BA6@JcK-HP8200> <> <> <5F4EE3F805C40EF25D1E0E57@JcK-HP8200> <> <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Ned Freed <>,, Doug Royer <>, "" <>, John C Klensin <>, Alexey Melnikov <>
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 07:02:57 -0000

> 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

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.