Subject: [lemonade] Profile-bis and IMAP-COMPRESS

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:12:14 -0500

ALL WITH CHAIR HAT OFF, I'm just an individual contributor here...

Since we are two years late, is application-layer compression still a major
issue?  What is the Work Group's feelings if we change the conformance
language in Section 5.2 from MUST support IMAP-COMPRESS to:

   However, the working group acknowledges that legacy endpoints
   rarely deployed TLS.  Thus, while Lemonade Message Stores MUST
   support TLS with deflate, a Lemonade Message Store SHOULD
   provide [IMAP-COMPRESS] support for fall-back application-level
   stream compression.

Three years from now, there is no reason to require a Lemonade server to
support IMAP-COMPRESS.  However, TLS needs to be there.  Conversely, the
*market* will drive current implementations to do IMAP-COMPRESS today, but
will also alleviate that pain over time.  No reason to leave donkey tracks
if we do not have to.

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

rg;
	Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:08:15 -0500
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:12:14 -0500
From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>,
	St=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=phane Maes <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lemonade] Profile-bis and IMAP-COMPRESS

ALL WITH CHAIR HAT OFF, I'm just an individual contributor here...

Since we are two years late, is application-layer compression still a major
issue?  What is the Work Group's feelings if we change the conformance
language in Section 5.2 from MUST support IMAP-COMPRESS to:

   However, the working group acknowledges that legacy endpoints
   rarely deployed TLS.  Thus, while Lemonade Message Stores MUST
   support TLS with deflate, a Lemonade Message Store SHOULD
   provide [IMAP-COMPRESS] support for fall-back application-level
   stream compression.

Three years from now, there is no reason to require a Lemonade server to
support IMAP-COMPRESS.  However, TLS needs to be there.  Conversely, the
*market* will drive current implementations to do IMAP-COMPRESS today, but
will also alleviate that pain over time.  No reason to leave donkey tracks
if we do not have to.

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:22:29 +0100

Eric Burger writes:
> Since we are two years late, is application-layer compression still a 
> major issue? What is the Work Group's feelings if we change the 
> conformance language in Section 5.2 from MUST support IMAP-COMPRESS 
> to:
>
>    support TLS with deflate, a Lemonade Message Store SHOULD provide 
>    [IMAP-COMPRESS] support for fall-back application-level stream 
>    compression.

I like that.

> Three years from now, there is no reason to require a Lemonade server 
> to support IMAP-COMPRESS.

And I hope you're right.

Arnt

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:46:42 +0000

On Sat Dec 15 15:12:14 2007, Eric Burger wrote:
> issue?

I'm unaware of any changes to the situation, and as far as I can tell  
from a modicum of research (read: a very cursory look about), mobile  
devices still don't natively do TLS compression by default.

>   What is the Work Group's feelings if we change the conformance
Argh! SHOULD! See my other message.

> will also alleviate that pain over time.  No reason to leave donkey  
In a conversation with Alexey, I came up with the following proposal:

(16:22:49) [email-masked]/Office: I think we ought to merely note  
that COMPRESS=DEFLATE, whilst mandatory for Lemonade Message Stores,  
is to be considered an interim measure, and may be deprecated in the  
future. Clients SHOULD use TLS-based compression wherever possible.

In other words, we put clients "on notice" that this is not the  
future, but we also ensure that servers still implement it.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade