The slightly different spin that I started from but did not manage to quite get to come out in the message was that I don't think that the successor to email will be designed as the successor to email. I think that it will be an infrastructure that is designed to do something different and just happens to provide a more convenient or otherwise superior email capability while being seamlesly integrated into it. It will replace email by accident or not quite accident rather than design. The same goes for the various proposals to replace the DNS with something 'better' by whatever metric people choose to apply (uses ASN.1 and will herald the return of OSI, uses angle brackets and will solve the worlds problems with its angle bracketty goodness, uses a proprietary patented protocol and will make the proponents who not coincidentally continue to exercise control over it rich, rich, rich). They will fail because they try too hard and they don't realise that their extrinsic objectives are incompatible with their public goal. > -----Original Message----- > From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 6:27 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Douglas Otis; Keith Moore > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: New models for email (Re: e2e) > > > > --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