Subject: [lemonade] Draft liaison to OMA

From: "Glenn Parsons" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:18:30 -0500

Folks,

As discussed in the meeting today, the draft liaison to OMA is below.

Note we will also include a presentation on profile-bis, the draft of
which was presented during the meeting today as well:
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/lemonade-5.ppt

Please provide your comments on both of these by COB Friday March 24th
so that we can send this as a liaison to OMA in time for their meeting.

Cheers,
Glenn.

From: IETF LEMONADE Working Group
To: OMA MWG MEM Sub Working Group
Title: Regarding the LEMONADE Profile	
Response contact:  [email-masked]
Purpose:  For Information

The LEMONADE working group (WG) would like to thank the OMA Mobile Email
Sub Working Group for your latest liaison.

We appreciate your response to the questions that we had asked in our
previous liaison.  We have a specific comment based on your feedback on
subsetting the OMA STI parameters for content transformation.  For the
IMAP CONVERT protocol we propose to specify that HTML to text conversion
is the only 'mandatory to implement' in clients and servers.  We need a
small set to ensure interoperability across a wide variety of devices.
The CONVERT protocol can support all STI parameters as optional, and the
protocol will support a graceful error condition if a client asks a
server for a conversion that is not supported.  We would encourage the
OMA to further subset the full list of STI parameters to make it
realistic for the OMA mobile enabler.  As a result, we propose that
LEMONADE would not specify the STI list decided by OMA MEM, but that
this would be included in the OMA MEM TS.

As we have indicated before, the LEMONADE WG is working on a set of
extensions to IMAP and ESMTP to support mobile email.  This set will be
succinctly described in the LEMONADE profile
(draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-bis).  We understand that the OMA TS will
normatively reference the LEMONADE profile for the MEM protocol.  In
order to help you understand this protocol better, we have attached a
presentation to update OMA MEM on the content of the LEMONADE profile. 

Up-to-date information on LEMONADE Internet-Drafts and RFCs can always
be found at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/lemonade-charter.html with
more detail tracked on the supplemental site.

Finally, as information, the next meetings of the IETF LEMONADE WG are:
*	May 31 - IETF LEMONADE 65.5 interim meeting - TBD
*	Jul 10-14 - IETF 66 plenary - Montreal

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:50:49 -0800

At 3:18 PM -0500 3/22/06, Glenn Parsons wrote:

>  Note we will also include a presentation on profile-bis, the draft 
> of which was presented during the meeting today as well:
>
> 
> <http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/lemonade-5.ppt>http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/lemonade-5.ppt
>
>  Please provide your comments on both of these by COB Friday March 
> 24th so that we can send this as a liaison to OMA in time for their 
> meeting.

I like slides 7 and 8, showing two deployment choices (proprietary 
world and IETF world), but I'd suggest one more slide (new slide 9), 
which would be the same as slide 8, except that the IMAP store and 
the submit server are both lemonade-enabled and hence there is no 
need for boxes in front.  I'd go so far as to call this slide "IETF 
World", and rename slide 8 something like "IETF World (pre-lemonade)".

On slide 9 (MUST implement), maybe replace "ESMTP" with "SMTP/Submit" 
and add "Message Submission (port 587)".  Maybe this is too 
low-level, so I won't mind if you prefer to leave it out.

On slide 10, please delete "push".  We don't use that term anymore, 
since it has misleading connotations and people think it means 
something very different from what it does.  I'd suggest deleting the 
whole line "The Pull Trio", and maybe the whole slide.  Do we still 
need this slide?  This is a long-settled issue and is part of the 
approved Profile document.

On Slide 11, please change "Phase bis" to "Profile Update".  We don't 
actually have phases, so we don't want to say "phase bis", and the 
term "bis" is not universally understood to mean what we mean here, 
which is an update.

Also on Slide 11, by "All of Profile", do we mean "All of original 
Profile" or "All of updated Profile"?

Also on Slide 11, do we want to mention TLS compression?  I thought 
it was an open issue.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Power corrupts; Powerpoint corrupts absolutely.
            --Vint Cert