Re: SMTP or MIME in Strawman OPES Charter

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
>
>