Re: [plasma] why not web portal mail?

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Tue, 12 April 2011 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: plasma@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: plasma@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10413E0890 for <plasma@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OZyPLxdzzc5Z for <plasma@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2BC2E0824 for <plasma@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so6396393vxg.31 for <plasma@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=//nhcB0R2EEVREluAMiH7jp9h5mPNiliJbQSJiB5RLU=; b=X9aIcLylDqqb4fE+DvKpwQeANtGy+AqnUJOsFdzU4QBY8Pcvv/Slv9VHroddqD03We ZyHdnIVrhL21kxupKno3+nawExW8QfGG1yWLvPePnBXEdgM4Q75beqaJpeIkwnuICIyu kNULkXBWJC01EPgApwfWaTFSLUjYj1sUbE3Xk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=SqcLJ9Qzyqe1JJnt4HzxCApuVRCnByB8yekodtOolL/ORP5aXayEZiwXXf7c3uOW/3 jBGrmXLizXVEjhCPFqQIzf3T9gQQW69Bfnb07qR8/byo/67YywOUUZQPIl9byMsdCmcR AApIYgW1ZzzSy8tdFWmBgObqEePn6PpgcaBIc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.176.36 with SMTP id cf4mr1984860vdc.29.1302636689169; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.166.230 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E545B914D50B2A4B994F198378B1525D339D7F4B@DF-M14-11.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <E545B914D50B2A4B994F198378B1525D2F49734F@DF-M14-12.exchange.corp.microsoft.com> <4DA45FE5.3020102@mnt.se> <E545B914D50B2A4B994F198378B1525D339D7F4B@DF-M14-11.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:31:29 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTimjLVTre_DTjifrk5pQy941QiNHsw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Trevor Freeman <trevorf@exchange.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5171ea7211eac04a0bdbdd5
Cc: "plasma@ietf.org" <plasma@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [plasma] why not web portal mail?
X-BeenThere: plasma@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The PoLicy Augmented S/Mime \(plasma\) bof discussion list." <plasma.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/plasma>, <mailto:plasma-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/plasma>
List-Post: <mailto:plasma@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:plasma-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma>, <mailto:plasma-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:31:31 -0000

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/