Charles Eliot (charle@Exchange.Microsoft.com)
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:32:40 -0800
I agree. The noble aim of multimedia client interoperability is not advanced
by specifying how the messages get from server to client.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric.Burger@centigram.com [mailto:Eric.Burger@centigram.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 6:50 PM
To: clausen@connsys.com
Cc: 'IETF VPIM List'; 'EMA VPIM List'
Subject: [VPIM] Re: draft-ema-vpim-simpleV3-01.txt
IVM describes a MIME profile. My issue isn't IMAP vs. some other mail
access protocol. Rather, the issue is whether a message retrieval
"requirement" belongs in a MIME profile document.
I agree, today's best practices indicate IMAP4 for message transport. The
question is whether this is an appropriate subject matter for a profile
Internet Draft.
From: Eric.Burger@centigram.com
> Issue 1: IMAP (Section 9)
> Why should implementations support IMAP? Is this really a part of IVM?
Are
> we saying the profile defines a Unified Messaging system? I would propose
> we stay away from that issue and focus on the profile (exchange
protocol).
> By specifying retrieval as part of the protocol, we're limiting a lot of
> IVM-capable legacy voice messaging systems.
to me, imap is the obvious mail access protocol for ivm devices to
use. other protocols will certainly work, but imap is the best choice
(it's a standard protocol, supports multi-accessed mailboxes, and
has a remote-store model). given this, i think the language in the
draft ("SHOULD") is appropriate. imap is not mandated, but
strongly recommended.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Mar 17 2000 - 06:32:41 IDT