Re: [apps-discuss] IETF technical plenary: the end of application protocols

Hannes Tschofenig <> Tue, 22 March 2011 09:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E46333A67E5 for <>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 02:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.83
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.231, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r8wRhgUtQhIf for <>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 02:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CF3F3A67E1 for <>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 02:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2011 09:12:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (EHLO []) [] by (mp032) with SMTP; 22 Mar 2011 10:12:21 +0100
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19ui/lzGJRu5+lmB3jUBsVwHStAjl7cgbxudskaTT cAnfbIPvtj3Wzr
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Hannes Tschofenig <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:12:16 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: SM <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] IETF technical plenary: the end of application protocols
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:10:57 -0000

On Mar 22, 2011, at 10:47 AM, SM wrote:

> I read "post-standardization environment" in terms of an organization trying to find something to do when its mission is obsoleted by events.

We had to find some term to describe this paradigm and concept.  

When you look through the broader standardization landscape then you for sure will notice that there are architectural differences in where groups see the need for standards and interoperability and what degree of interoperability is necessary. For example, compare a 3GPP IMS architecture, the IETF SIP architecture, and the RTCWeb-based architecture. I hope you recognize differences - differences that go beyond the protocol level. 

I assume that you do not just randomly standardize something and wait for someone else to pick it up (although researchers like to explore the entire solution space and that's fine as well).

While it is difficult to provide suggestions regarding the approach a protocol designer should take there are various side-effects of any decision you make. When we interviewed folks in the Web community (from inside the IETF as well as outside) it was not so clear where the limits for the Web (HTML/JavaScript) model are. In any case they are changing rapidly. We hope to get more feedback from those who have been exposed to some of the mentioned Web technologies. Are you this Web person?