RE: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-neystadt-imap-status-counters-00.txt

I have to agree with Mark's sentiment expressed below.  The whole point of
using IMAP for Pink Lemonade is there is a large existing base of servers
and developers.  If we set out to build "VPIM-IMAP", we might as well call
it son/daughter of IMAP and be done with it.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Mark Crispin
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 9:31 PM
To: John Neystadt
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [VPIM] Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-neystadt-imap-status-counters-00.txt

[snip]
The more that you leverage existing tools, as opposed to requiring the
creation of new tools, the better able you'll be able to deploy.  Ideally,
given 100% leverage, you'll be able to run your VPIM client software
with any IMAP server; you may desire to have a special IMAP server that is
optimized for VPIM, but there is an attraction to being able to plug in
with any server.

What concerns me is the possibility of making VPIM clients excessively
and unnecessarily dependent upon a VPIM-extended server.  This doesn't
mean "thou shalt not extend IMAP for VPIM under any circumstances"!!  It
does, however, suggest that you should leverage aggressively and extend
IMAP only if there's no way to leverage.

Also, the more minimal a VPIM extension to IMAP is, the more likely it is
that you'll get it generally implemented.  For example, if a VPIM
extension requires only about 15 minutes of programming work, I'm likely
to do it in my server, just to preclude having to answer an email require
to do it.  If, on the other hand, an extension requires many hours of
work, it's much less likely to happen without specific value to us.

----------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent to you, since you are subscribed to
[email protected]. You can manage your subscription at
http://www.neystadt.org/cgi-bin/majordomo