Subject: [UM] RE: Interesting (gross?) use of CHANNEL

From: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 23:24:09 -0500

I have to hop in here:  Is CHANNEL sensible if the end-system does not get
"transformed" data?

Transcoding *HAS* to be a legitimate use of CHANNEL.

Filtering *HAS* to be a legitimate use of CHANNEL.

Why?  If the bytes/packets are not modified, why use anything other than
IMAP?  The WHOLE POINT of CHANNEL is to get the data in a "more useful"
form, possibly from an "easier" place.

I do agree that the semantic content of the data may not be altered.
However, almost by definition the client is requesting alternate format,
possibly done on the fly.  CHANNEL transformations are (1) by client request
and (2) do not change the semantic value of the data.

What is the basis for the objection?

--
- Eric

--------------------------------------------

Lyndon Said, and Pete Replied:
[snip]
>Yuk. No. Again, CHANNEL is NOT alowwed to modify the data content in ANY
way.

What data content is being modified here? You are simply sending the
data (unchanged) to another process which is going to do something
with it. In some cases, that will be "Play the sounds to the user
using a speaker". In my case, it will be "Send this data via SMTP".
What's the problem?

pr
--
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:28:44 -0600

On 3/17/02 at 11:24 PM -0500, Eric Burger wrote:

>I have to hop in here:  Is CHANNEL sensible if the end-system does 
>not get "transformed" data?

Lyndon actually backed off of his original position; it can certainly 
be transformed, but it shouldn't be changed while it's still on the 
IMAP server. However, there is a perfectly legitimate use of 
untransformed data:

>Why?  If the bytes/packets are not modified, why use anything other 
>than IMAP?  The WHOLE POINT of CHANNEL is to get the data in a "more 
>useful" form, possibly from an "easier" place.

You've said it yourself: You might want to get the data from an 
"easier place". That is, you don't want to have to tell another 
system to go to an IMAP server and go through all of the 
authentication and IMAP overhead that you've already dealt with. You 
want to push the data to another process.

I'd like to write up the mailto: use of CHANNEL. Would you be willing 
to include it in draft-burger-imap-chanuse-00.txt?

pr

---

From: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:21:31 -0500

Actually, you're right on the "non-transforming" use of CHANNEL.

I can put a mailto: CHANNEL scenario into the next draft.  I know Greg
really wants it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Resnick [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 6:29 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Lyndon Nerenberg; [email-masked]; IETF UM
Subject: RE: Interesting (gross?) use of CHANNEL

pr