Re: [lemonade] About draft-gulbrandsen-imap-notify-02

[Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt at oryx.com>]

Randall Gellens writes:
> At 10:11 AM +0800 2/10/07, Lingyan Wu wrote:
>
> >  BTW. What I think is based upon the precondition that "while client 
> >  is connected only inband notifications shall take place".
>
> This requires that the notification engine can determine if the user 
> (not any particular client of the user) is logged in.  It also opens 
> one timing hole during login when connected clients will get two 
> notifications, one inband and the other outband.  This is probably 
> not a problem, as the client should be able to handle this.  It also 
> opens a second timing hole during disconnection when the client will 
> not get any notifications.

No, that hole is there anyway if you look at the grand scheme of things. 
Suppose a notification is sent to a laptop client just as the client is 
reaching for the laptop lid, and is displayed on-screen as the lid is 
closing, already almost closed, too late for the user to notice. The 
client receives the event, the user not.

In any case, if I've understood the general attitude here correctly, we 
don't care too much about it: Stray lost notifications are okay as long 
as there aren't too many.

> It also opens the issue of client versus user: the server knows users, 
> but it may be clients that care about specific notifications.

Or it may be users. I've heard use-cases for both. The 
sieve/metadata/blah notification system towards which I think we're 
heading heading should support both. (Alexey will talk about this and 
give some examples in Prague.)

Arnt

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