ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: New models for email (Re: e2e)

2007-08-20 15:51:38
The slightly different spin that I started from but did not manage to quite get 
to come out in the message was that I don't think that the successor to email 
will be designed as the successor to email.

I think that it will be an infrastructure that is designed to do something 
different and just happens to provide a more convenient or otherwise superior 
email capability while being seamlesly integrated into it. It will replace 
email by accident or not quite accident rather than design.


The same goes for the various proposals to replace the DNS with something 
'better' by whatever metric people choose to apply (uses ASN.1 and will herald 
the return of OSI, uses angle brackets and will solve the worlds problems with 
its angle bracketty goodness, uses a proprietary patented protocol and will 
make the proponents who not coincidentally continue to exercise control over it 
rich, rich, rich). They will fail because they try too hard and they don't 
realise that their extrinsic objectives are incompatible with their public goal.


-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 6:27 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Douglas Otis; Keith Moore
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: New models for email (Re: e2e)



--On Monday, 20 August, 2007 15:16 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:

I have a slightly different take from John here.

My strong belief is that a proposal for a new protocol that 
does the 
same thing as SMTP but slightly better is a total non starter. No 
matter how much better the protocol is the cost of transition will 
dominate.

And which part of that do you think I disagree with?

As a matter of principle, I believe an important one, I will 
not say, to Doug or anyone else, "in spite of the fact that I 
haven't seen a complete and coherent proposal, I think your idea
is too stupid to be worth discussion".    My guess is that, once
I see a complete proposal, I'm not going to be enthused about it
-- partially because of issues I've already identified-- but 
I believe it is better for all of us if Doug actually 
generates a proposal rather than tossing generalities and 
vague ideas at us and having us toss generalities and vague 
ideas back.  And he might just convince me that there is a 
useful area of applicability for his ideas, after which we 
could quibble about how broad that area was rather than 
arguing about the viability
of the protocol ideas.   I wouldn't plan on it, but I think
trying to keep an open mind is useful.

The only way that I see a new email infrastructure emerging is as a 
part of a more general infrastructure to support multi-modal 
communication, both synchronous and asynchronous, bilateral and 
multilateral, Instant Messaging, email, voice, video, 
network news all 
combined in one unified protocol.

Of course, such a protocol would have much greater odds of 
success if it was also less complex than either SMTP or SIP, 
provided absolutely reliable sender authentication and 
message integrity that typical users could fully understand 
and utilized, and also cured cancer.

     john



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>