Hi all,
(2) Some of us believe, at least on some days, that a key reason
why SMTP, the message formats that started with RFC 822, POP3,
and IMAP have survived against a large number of proprietary and
other SDO alternatives have been precisely because they operate
in plain text, with all but IMAP using very simple
command-argument or name:value syntax. Are we ready to give
that up? Do we really need interoperability between a server
and a captive Webmail interface? Arguably, standards of that
type are part of the province of the IETF only if someone is
contemplating generic webmail clients that can interact with the
servers of more than one organization.
My two cents here: someone proposed 2 years ago a similar model for
NNTP. It was named... JNTP (Json News Transfer Protocol).
Here is its current "specification" (in French):
http://www.nemoweb.net/?page_id=75
with even an RFC-like format:
http://www.nemoweb.net/?p=1295
And, as John hinted at, people get then stuck in exchanges between an
NNTP server and a captive webnews interface like:
http://news.nemoweb.net/
Since 2014, no much move for JNTP, which is still used only by his creator.
Like SMTP and IMAP, NNTP operates in plain text. A great advantage over
other alternatives.
Again, just questions, but questions I think we need to ask
carefully before standardizing yet another alternative way to do
much the same thing.
+1
--
Julien ÉLIE
« – Vous ramassez des champignons sans les connaître ?
– Et alors ? Ce n'est pas pour les manger mais pour les vendre. »
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp