Re: [plasma] why not web portal mail?

If we consider the Word, Excel and Diplomatic cables examples, the data is
static and to be controlled under a policy regardless of what channels it
might be transferred or transmitted through.

The protocol requirement here in my view is to enable applications to
determine how to apply the security policy identified as X to the data
object Y.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Trevor Freeman <
trevorf@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:

> If you consider XMPP case it is easier because there is no expectation of
> data persistence. It's a synchronous protocol where all parties are online
> together exchanging information and that information is not persisted one
> the session is ended.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: plasma-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:plasma-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Leif Johansson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 7:21 AM
> To: plasma@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [plasma] why not web portal mail?
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 04/06/2011 09:33 PM, Trevor Freeman wrote:
> > Stephen Farrell asked why not use Web portal mail? Why do we need to
> develop plasma?
>
> Maybe that question is easier to answer if we consider plasma for XMPP and
> not just for email. There are important differences between XMPP and email
> that make it much more challenging to build web-only versions of the XMPP.
>
>        Cheers Leif
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk2kX+UACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZndeOwCcC1BQafbUXYLHJZKxsuAcV8eS
> 6ukAnA0JGhMsLdmh+WG+GqEUoVMWj7+e
> =5lPF
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> plasma mailing list
> plasma@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma
> _______________________________________________
> plasma mailing list
> plasma@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma
>

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/