MBOX-Line: From dave at cridland.net  Mon Mar  9 14:24:34 2015
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:54 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] If Crispin were creating IMAP today how would
 it be different?
In-Reply-To: <17104.1425935863@parc.com>
References: <54FAEB94.4070508@lavabitllc.com> <54FBF289.3010202@psaux.com>
	<7164.1425831184@parc.com>
	<1425907661.1215497.237833469.1EDA571D@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<6506.1425915329@parc.com>
	<B03452330F6149E180E449A493F28C2B@gmail.com>
	<17104.1425935863@parc.com>
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzwkWk3WzA9fz5ddTA1Cxm08=iSdzx8kPCcPUos6+vAoZA@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 March 2015 at 21:17, Bill Janssen <janssen@parc.com> wrote:

> Hoa V. DINH <dinh.viet.hoa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think using human readable text protocol is still a very good idea
> since it makes it easier to debug just by logging input/output of the
> protocol.
>
> Yes, that's always been the argument.  On the other hand, you don't
> read those logs with your bare Mark-I eyeballs.  You use a tool, even
> if it's just less+xterm.  Writing a WireShark plugin is so streamlined
> these days that I see no real advantage in the text formats anymore.
>

That would indeed explain the recent resurgence of ASN.1 based protocols.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20150309/ab72d604/attachment.html>
