- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:47:19 -0700
- To: W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
There have been discussions here in the past about the applicability of RFC 3205 to various protocols that tunnel through HTTP. Interestingly, I just noticed this RFC that attempts to standardize an IMAP over HTTP that deliberately (and knowingly) violates every piece of advice in RFC 3205 and even manages to require that the server *not* implement GET. The saddest part is that the correct way to implement IMAP via HTTP is to simply use HTTP on a virtual mapping of resources. The two protocols have almost identical capabilities, so the only translation needed is to map the stateful interaction of IMAP to appropriate resource states in HTTP and then extend HTTP's authentication to include IMAP's mechanisms. Anyone have time to deliver a clue-stick to the LEMONADE stand? ....Roy Begin forwarded message: > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > Date: September 26, 2005 7:50:02 AM PDT > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-maes-lemonade-http-binding-02.txt > Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org > Message-Id: <E1EJuIs-0006dw-Cj@newodin.ietf.org> > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > > Title : IMAP HTTP Binding > Author(s) : S. Maes, et al. > Filename : draft-maes-lemonade-http-binding-02.txt > Pages : 13 > Date : 2005-9-26 > > As part of the LEMONADE work to define extensions to the IMAPv4 Rev1 > protocol [RFC3501] that provide optimizations in a variety of > settings, the this document describes an alternative, optional > binding for IMAPv4 showing how HTTP can be used to transfer IMAP > commands and responses. This binding is intended to facilitate the > use of IMAP in deployments involving a variety of intermediaries. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-maes-lemonade-http-binding > -02.txt
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2005 20:47:24 UTC