Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP

Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmail.com> Wed, 26 April 2017 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <neilj@fastmail.com>
X-Original-To: jmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E5E1294D8 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.719 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.com header.b=C/UpGWpy; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Hq5tvoMa
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 av6bzbmyLvIW for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DD2E1294C5 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from betaweb1.internal (betaweb1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.10]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59EB21E69 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:04:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from betaweb1 ([::ffff:10.202.2.10]) by betaweb1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:04:43 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.com; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=YcsmvbvQnxioZ4/m48BRiZAKcta+k OHHtBeaPtjdDzo=; b=C/UpGWpyH80SC1mzpOwODSdRLCiD3+vJV5DZB8z2VdC/J HzJ3sI1oFxVog3P5gDDHwf9vxd1M233eGMRpBg2LMIa4awUloyMrWeDlidOY0QGN RyXRsK7iyaz+GNCYX+nvsj1GnD8NXibkYLRsJPJCVIZT82/RgPqOUcimnyZMC+Xb EFHYjjhWputlbaHQPmdcKgaGhL56TiGxwfPqCC0z8cKMweGtgF4iG9Vef/zfU0go 2YVQ+HINwK3LNj5fuc3zzEJeHpf9LWEmmK/InI6V54yryx00fLkH92M3cTB+UDOw sN2dbIgwV5h3ViEEcyBMJBA73Dut3EoheBPVrW8aw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Ycsmvb vQnxioZ4/m48BRiZAKcta+kOHHtBeaPtjdDzo=; b=Hq5tvoMa/y1JAU88SYFWe5 J9/o8RqbljWKh1xL8g+bz7NUygNv3Yfp50ZsUJr5GsTvn1We8pmsUoa96pOmzBWa xi1Yk8gAmsgSPqklh6/CYOF7ekygiTrvDecQuZ5qWlz4FfKG1TRj+bVN4U4943FR ib9o0zs9oWTQob/3XKcEYDNVuRfCdBo/yzskKFoZtTiUHoOx3Ca7voJBuiUAsgEZ /AuA2xpItgzdBBDu05tcC+tdpdsEQkl37U53QanQ4YAXrWAELuqYOPWQAzssgSr3 tDAZOhbgCihM/KDkBMfH3e00LGMEsx69CTxvu7wkMKYlxX/Fa/1hr8aLiinKOP3g ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:iycBWS94OTIbg-zbISYtG4tlhW170V3OO4EC3aE0ryyacS5dquTo2A>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 67A88E27D8; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:04:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1493247883.1296252.957528008.3E96BD8F@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmail.com>
To: jmap@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_149324788312962521"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-843b6574
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6uYFAwLBRzN9RmvirHAGTX8B6eWR4Vcx8yJ05UXG7QMWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <em8b177018-4769-44ea-b033-90bd8155d11b@bodybag> <46F700A6-C2B1-488B-A8B4-6ACD45B03C31@oracle.com> <CABa8R6uYFAwLBRzN9RmvirHAGTX8B6eWR4Vcx8yJ05UXG7QMWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:04:43 +0000
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/6LOroxgmEytRJrn9Qepg3-snrIA>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP
X-BeenThere: jmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: JSON Message Access Protocol <jmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jmap>, <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:jmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jmap>, <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:04:47 -0000

On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, at 10:25 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> But, if all JMAP is is a proxy of existing protocols, then it seems
> like an expensive undertaking for little gain.
Agreed. JMAP is not just a proxy. We have implemented a proxy[1] to
test with, but it's not stateless (in fact quite heavyweight), as it
needs to build indexes to provide features that are not available in the
protocols it's proxying through to.
The goal with designing JMAP has been to make it possible to implement
JMAP and IMAP interfaces to the same backend mail store (so someone
could happily use both an IMAP client and a JMAP client concurrently and
see a consistent view of their data). We know the current draft achieves
this, because there's a pretty complete implementation of the current
draft in Cyrus[2]. This is a necessary property for having a migration
path, however it still gives flexibility to fix the many deficiencies of
the current standards.
Neil.

Links:

  1. https://proxy.jmap.io/
  2. http://cyrusimap.org/imap/download/installation/http/jmap.html