Re: [apps-discuss] Non-proprietary sync (was Re: Is e-mail going to die?

Interesting idea. I was thinking about a similar scheme only with the data
being encrypted on the storage drive and a decryption key issued bound to
each device authorized to read. The idea being to leverage the Ford-Wiener
model of CRM which is coming out of patent very soon.

Much of the protocol complexity of this type of scheme ends up being how
the end user establishes a device as authorized to access their account.
When I wrote Omnibroker I discovered that ended up being about 80% of the
protocol and the actual query-response piece was very straightforward.

Since this piece is applicable to many similar Web Services, I took it out
and made it a separate draft as Web Services Connect:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-wsconnect-02

One issue that I have is working out what to call it as " Web Services *"
has been effectively grabbed by the SOAP/WS* crowd. And this is a JSON
protocol. I changed to JSON Connect (JCX) but I don't like that either.

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Michiel B. de Jong <
anything@michielbdejong.com> wrote:

> On 2013-06-17 10:09, Dave Raggett wrote:
>
>> Non-proprietary sync is the next step
>>
>
> That is exactly what "remote storage" tries to propose: a non-proprietary
> protocol that does something like Dropbox/GoogleDrive/SkyDrive over
> cross-origin HTTP.
>
> We uploaded the -01 version of the I-D last week:
>
>     http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-**dejong-remotestorage-01.txt<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-dejong-remotestorage-01.txt>
> ______________________________**_________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/apps-discuss<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>
>

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/