Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap)
2017-02-06 14:05:19
Adding to this:
HTTP/HTTPS are not stateless, since they are connection-based.
A lot of the people on the HTTP WG would have an issue with this
statement.
In fact there has been a lot of discussion about the evils of
connection-oriented anything in regard to HTTP, especially around
authentication (e.g. NTLM).
There are proxies that reuse upstream connections between different
clients, the protocol (1.1 at least) is designed to be stateless in
terms of each message being independent of others, whether on the same
connection or not.
So I wouldn't start a new protocol based on the presumption that
HTTP/HTTPS is connection-oriented and not stateless.
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap), Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap), Dave Crocker
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap), Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap), Dave Crocker
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap), Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity, Gren Elliot
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity, Randy Bush
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity, Dave Crocker
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity, Ted Lemon
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity, Gren Elliot
- Re: [Jmap] service discovery, was WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity, John Levine
- Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap), Alexey Melnikov
|
|
|