Markus,
I am fine with postponing this discussion until the new
charter is approved, with understanding that the new charter does not
limit our option to developing a basic OCP/MIME profile as a
foundation of OCP/SMTP.
Alex.
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote:
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Is it reasonable to assume that, due to differences in user agents
(e.g., PC versus phone), folks will want to adapt stored messages when
they know IMAP or POP client preferences (rather then when the message
is received by SMTP server)?
Even if so, let's focus our new charter on SMTP, and we'll have a much
better chance to get it accepted. This does no preclude us from coming
up with a solution that might also be useful in the context of IMAP,
POP or other protocols, but the charter will not require this. Just
what we did with the initial focus on HTTP and coming up with OCP core.
This is very important, I guess. Should we decide now whether SMTP
commands adaptation is in scope (as opposed to SMTP message
adaptation).
Can someone give a specific example/use case for SMTP commands
adaptation ?
I see your point (and glad that you are back from vacation!). I have
not decided yet. What are we really trying to optimize here: Do you
think we will waste a lot of time if we define a common OCP/MIME
profile (that alone will not be useful for some adaptations) and then
build OCP/SMTP profile on top of that (as opposed to building one
monolithic OCP/SMTP profile)? Or do you think that defining a common
OCP/MIME profile is simply useless because nobody cares enough about
IMAP and POP (and so nobody will reuse the common profile).
I don't expect the new charter to make any statements in this regard
(charter will only request a SMTP profile), so let's first get our new
charter nailed down and we can then start discussing these details, ok?
-Markus