- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:11:26 -0400
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 01:47:19PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > 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. +1 > Anyone have time to deliver a clue-stick to the LEMONADE stand? As a veteran of several attempted "Web clue-stickings", in and out of the IETF, I'd recommend restraint. By the time the effort has a cool moniker like "CRISP", "MIDCOM", or "LEMONADE" (not to mention "Web services" 8-), IME, the commitment to developing a new protocol has already been made. Remember the APPLCORE discussions? From what I could extract from them, it appears as though the IETF community's idea of protocol reuse is focused on layer 6 ala BEEP, not layer 7 ala HTTP. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2005 00:09:24 UTC