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

Doug Royer <> Tue, 08 November 2016 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA571298BD; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 09:15:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PhWLJD56BOaR; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 09:15:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B673129929; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 09:15:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i145so88554100ywg.2; Tue, 08 Nov 2016 09:15:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=RTQSDmGke0fAdm44bSuV2L04Y3sHa1SJlHSCM3izN74=; b=yqG2psZ1KWUsMYH6abpxlHvira2rE0V9fCvhuBj2cyXRN0KUihcbFjkXwP8JVoIPZ3 OKIBqklwPdkD6P6wcY36htVJKEA0NL67HZ6f2EK8CVC+rmSrJUNnor4soLP07WhuGTue +kK25sSiYs4DmL+icr5W0m5NOsw5UPXyE9UezqBMZrrJsTURbzGTdDIbCaRPTpPZOkUq 7SwwPfvLwYqbPTs7QHaHfEMr2qSvaztwp7JAjFGcSPyCceX2EctehDu9TZmGLfhlkRyN Y2ojf/x2WqCTAQ56bZBLywOXLaVwDpkTYR26824VOPMxrnu7xka24DMUbSN+qQgiMWCN 41bg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=RTQSDmGke0fAdm44bSuV2L04Y3sHa1SJlHSCM3izN74=; b=dyFoYHoA+FOyVdjLu11UfpohzIG4wAAANHUVLI+AtHurLOLM1SHyd73mi9dc5vZWCP ewXz3DwMcjZK23Uec3tGY/MpQ/funJnJEQy629aqhHyr8Omfv2fiBBqlqN3wCwiHYQiF SK9x2Q9afnecx7eDq/iMj/uk0RyQ1GFsAksx3MObcq+hq7EmfC5AFUV1nnRIpP8YjXfH 8K99GBlArn/AP1Fner1YYdFHREwxClMDdBdNSnPGwa5eifve4C0iXwuBJLWcmQBY65vi qAb5cOJFiW9iaVR8goARJ2GMkf8U3SUkHrtzqAofxseFaR8cdJx4dfOvjPhl6/otFEE/ 4MRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfp+WNHCeNZOI3BiageS0/RNVLBLleGKzEZ/gmo69By4dq8tWM3LCyZmr6zwI+kJA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 38mr6429389otu.188.1478625334501; Tue, 08 Nov 2016 09:15:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id w143sm9727359oif.13.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Nov 2016 09:15:33 -0800 (PST)
To: John C Klensin <>, Alexey Melnikov <>,, "''" <>
References: <> <> <56DA516EAC53C07E3F453BA6@JcK-HP8200>
From: Doug Royer <>
Organization: http://SoftwareAndServices.NET
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 10:15:31 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 SeaMonkey/2.40
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56DA516EAC53C07E3F453BA6@JcK-HP8200>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms080405020401080100080908"
Archived-At: <>
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, 08 Nov 2016 17:15:59 -0000

> These are just questions, not opposition, but the answers should
> probably be clear in any charter or chartering effort.
> (1) We've had a long history of variations on The Format to End
> All Formats, none of which have lasted a very long time.  I
> think JSON is better than most, but, if yet another wonderful
> format shows up in a few years and takes over, is it worth
> thinking now about what a transition plan would look like?

> (2) Some of us believe, ... because they operate
> in plain text, ...

I thought JSON was 7-bit, and required encoding to use 8-bit data portable.

So, if I am correct, then JSON is not a gain when it comes to non-text data?

> (3) ...  Seems
> to me that would promote much more compatibility and flexibility.

The complexity of the requests and replies are the issue. If its mostly 
converting IMAP to JSON, the same problems are going to exist.


Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US)