--On Monday, 20 August, 2007 15:16 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have a slightly different take from John here.
>
> My strong belief is that a proposal for a new protocol that
> does the same thing as SMTP but slightly better is a total non
> starter. No matter how much better the protocol is the cost of
> transition will dominate.
And which part of that do you think I disagree with?
As a matter of principle, I believe an important one, I will not
say, to Doug or anyone else, "in spite of the fact that I
haven't seen a complete and coherent proposal, I think your idea
is too stupid to be worth discussion". My guess is that, once
I see a complete proposal, I'm not going to be enthused about it
-- partially because of issues I've already identified-- but I
believe it is better for all of us if Doug actually generates a
proposal rather than tossing generalities and vague ideas at us
and having us toss generalities and vague ideas back. And he
might just convince me that there is a useful area of
applicability for his ideas, after which we could quibble about
how broad that area was rather than arguing about the viability
of the protocol ideas. I wouldn't plan on it, but I think
trying to keep an open mind is useful.
> The only way that I see a new email infrastructure emerging is
> as a part of a more general infrastructure to support
> multi-modal communication, both synchronous and asynchronous,
> bilateral and multilateral, Instant Messaging, email, voice,
> video, network news all combined in one unified protocol.
Of course, such a protocol would have much greater odds of
success if it was also less complex than either SMTP or SIP,
provided absolutely reliable sender authentication and message
integrity that typical users could fully understand and
utilized, and also cured cancer.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf