SIP plus an open identity infrastructure plus social networking, perhaps, maybe. I think that SIP has the addressing part right, it supports an email address notation for starters, it uses the DNS. But it needs more. In particular any successor messaging scheme has to have spam reduction, and nuisance call reduction built into the infrastructure. That means some form of buddy list concept but on an extended scale. I think that Tim Berners-Lee may be right that FOAF is the technology of choice here. To pull it all together I think we need to integrate in the concept of identity infrastructure so that we can have a single identifier for both inbound and outbound identity. Outbound identity being what I claim when I authenticate to post on a blog, inbound identity when someone attempts to send me a contact message via whatever medium. I like FOAF because it is a passive approach, I do not need to spend an inordinate amount of time asking other people to add me to their list and replying to requests from others. In FOAF links are allowed to be unidirectional. I can add John Klensin to my FOAF file and he can decide not to add me to his. Cf 404 not found, scruffy links work and turn out to be better than bidireactional maybe. I think we could clean FOAF up a lot with a small amount of support protocol and linking it to the email address identifier, but the structure seems basically right. So for example when I add John to my FOAF file it might ping his FOAF server to let it know and maybe it would send me a ping in return if John changed his email address of his FOAF location in future. Maybe once a month or so John looks at the folk who have added him to their FOAF file and clicks on a few to add them to his FOAF file. With such a capability most of the use cases for relay mail possibly, maybe evaporate, perhaps. > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mat@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 6:21 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: John C Klensin; Douglas Otis; Keith Moore; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: New models for email (Re: e2e) > > Hallam-Baker, Phillip 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. > > > > 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. > > > > You mean SIP? > > Mike > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf