Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-maes-lemonade-http-binding-02.txt

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