Subject: Fwd: iOS IMAP IDLE (Standard "Push Email") Deficiency, Explanation?

From: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 18:18:22 +0100

Maybe my hubris got the better of me, but I didn't bargain for a complete surprise.  Well, anyway, we know now why Apple does not implement IMAP IDLE in iOS.  I've clearly been spending too much time around the IETF, to find Mr. Job's explanation to be completely incomprehensible. :-)

(Please let me know if the Message/RFC822 part didn't come through right - thanks.)

I want to ask anybody who feels strongly to the contrary to please not attack the sender (and the messenger either if you can help it :-) ).  I guess I'm stuck waiting 15 minutes for new mail notifications, and running my battery down.  I'm not forwarding my mail anywhere or running Exchange (or a clone).  The latter, in particular, is a power-hungry option ...

Cheers,
Sabahattin

Subject: Re: iOS IMAP IDLE (Standard "Push Email") Deficiency, Explanation?
From: Steve Jobs <[email-masked]>
To: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 07:58:15 -0700

Purely technical. IMAP IDLE is a power hungry standard that is not great for mobile devices. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 4, 2010, at 3:29 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If you can't tell me much, I'll understand, but please tell me at least one thing: is iOS's distinctive lack of support of IMAP IDLE (and future open push standards) driven mostly by business agenda, mostly by technical agenda, or both?  I know Apple would hate to lower the bar for no good reason, and yet, somehow, this is the situation with push email notification on iOS devices, where the open standards have clear advantages.  This cannot be right, and I would love to know there was a reason I've overlooked or just don't know about.
> 
> Confidence assured upon request.
> 
> Cheers,
> Sabahattin

---

From: Martin Konold <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:13:33 +0200

Am Montag 04 Oktober 2010, 19:18:22 schrieb Sabahattin Gucukoglu:

Hi,

Well,  Steve Jobs is partly correct. (I avoided bothering him with my 
response)

On one hand IMAP IDLE has absolute minimal requirements with regards to 
protocol complexity which helps preserving power.

On the other hand IMAP IDLE is so limited in features that it has also 
negative effects on resource usage including user experience and power 
consumption.

1. IMAP IDLE can only monitor a single folder. Using multiple connections in 
order to circumvent this limitation is inefficient.

-->3 years ago I drafted an RFC which tries to solve this issue while 
remaining simple. 

http://www.erfrakon.de/konold/draft-konold-imap-idleplus-05.txt

2. IMAP IDLE lacks support for non mail folders e.g. clients are interested in 
watching calendars, addressbooks, todos etc.

--> I tired successfully with warpping these groupware related objects as XML 
objects within imap messages  (Kolab architecture)

http://kolab.org/doc/concept-draft-cvs20060921.pdf

3. IMAP IDLE requires a permanent stateful TCP connection and has no support 
for efficient reconnects. This means that clients cannot switch off the IP 
stack in order to preserve power and that loss of connection leads to extra 
bandwidth and processing requirements. This is not only bad for mobile 
clients.

All the above issues are tried to be addressed by the LEMONADE group e.g.  
IMAP CONDSTORE.

http://www.lemonadeformobiles.com/quick.html and 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lemonade/charter/

I am personally not really happy about the technical approach and progress 
sofar but I have been told by others who know much better than me to stop my 
above efforts and wait patiently for the results of the LEMONADE group.

Yours,
-- martin

-- 
e r f r a k o n
Erlewein, Frank, Konold & Partner - Beratende Ingenieure und Physiker
Sitz: Adolfstraße 23, 70469 Stuttgart, Partnerschaftsregister Stuttgart PR 126
http://www.erfrakon.com/

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 20:39:51 -0400

LEMONADE is beyond finished. What is to wait for?

On Oct 5, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Martin Konold wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf