RE: [lemonade] LEMONADE vs. P-IMAP

[<Zoltan.Ordogh at nokia.com>]

Hi Stephane,
Thank You for Your responses. Please read what I wrote below to confirm
that my understanding is correct.

>I frankly do not understand the discussion that is taking place.
I thought that this would be clear from the original mail I sent.
I see people referring to P-IMAP sometimes as if it was the LEMONADE
solution. This creates confusion. I would like to clarify this
confusion. Simple as that.

>We have propsoed P-IMAp as input to IETF and as a group at 
>lemonade we work on lemonade profile an dprofile bis That is 
>the output of the work and the resulting standard.
Understood, but the draft is not being discussed - it is a draft hanging
around - and according to Randall it is not the LEMONADE solution. Thus,
I think asking what is its purpose is a logical question.
So, what You are saying that it is not a standard but a form of input -
I can accept this - but the problem is some people refer to it as if it
was going to be a standard.

>We have similarly brought the use cases, features, 
>requiremenst and design point to OMA and the output is the OMA 
>MEM enabler.
To my knowledge OMA solution will be based on LEMONADE Profile. Hence my
question about having a third solution (based on P-IMAP) to be done in
OMA.

>We are pushing for having a MEM realization based on Lemonade 
>profile bis.
Yes, this I understand. What is not clear is the intent with P-IMAP. But
from Your statement above I understand it is a form of contributing
input to the LEMONADE standard, and P-IMAP is not a standard.

>What is not understood in these steps. Why create FUD around 
>P-IMAP, Lemonade profile or OMA MEM that is not needed nor called for?
No, there is no such intent. My intent is the exact opposite:
clarification.

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
lemonade at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade