+1. I could not have said this better. Anil
On Mon Feb 13 2012 07:20:45 GMT-0800 (PST), Cyrus Daboo <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Adrien, > > --On February 13, 2012 10:56:49 AM +1300 Adrien de Croy > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> So, in my opinion, whilst push notifications should be a requirement >>> for imap5, we should not define that protocol and instead push the >>> IETF to provide such a protocol for general use. >>> >> >> I don't think that's a workable approach. >> >> Getting such a protocol together, which enables notifications from any >> other application protocol I think will take a very long time, if it can >> even succeed. It's hard enough getting consensus within one protocol >> working group, let alone all of them working together. >> >> Also every different protocol has different notification requirements. >> trying to cover all that in a single protocol I think would be >> difficult. > > I disagree because what I envisage for the generic notification > service is an OS-level api (supplied by OS or 3rd party libraries) > that implement the "internet push service protocol". What that means > is that client developers only have to implement a simple api to get > push notifications. What is more anyone implementing more than one > protocol in their client (e.g. IMAP, CalDAV and CardDAV) would only > have to implement that once, albeit with some minor differences in > regard to how to get protocol specific pieces for registering for > notifications. > > Your point about actually getting this done is valid. But > realistically, do you really think IMAP5 is going to deploy overnight? > Frankly, anyone who has a reasonably solid IMAP4 implementation today > is going to question the need to work on something new, particularly > if that something new brings nothing to the table (and simply fixing > interop problems will probably not be seen as something "new"). If you > can actually show that IMAP5 adds significant value by doing things > like helping centralize push notifications, simplifying submission > etc, then maybe, just maybe, those existing implementors might > actually consider throwing out their current investment in IMAP4 for > the new thing. But, IMHO, you are really going to have to up-sell > IMAP5 to get buy-in from the major email providers. Now that does not > mean it is not worth doing, but it does mean having to do more than > just fixing perceived or real deficiencies. > -- ~Anil SRIVASTAVA
_______________________________________________ imap5 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5
