IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Standardizing protocol buffers

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 11 October 2012 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF2D21F85B8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KUxOdWgTjHSx for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE57321F858E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q9BKQYXu002260; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:26:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.117] (p54894040.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.64.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70D80337; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:26:34 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <868851912C182241B686E0BD4D73BC1713B73C@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:26:33 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0484F1B0-2C8B-48B3-8523-CC01C0A23D48@tzi.org>
References: <868851912C182241B686E0BD4D73BC1713B73C@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com>
To: "Rex Fernando (rex)" <rex@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "sstuart@google.com" <sstuart@google.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Standardizing protocol buffers
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:26:51 -0000

On Oct 11, 2012, at 19:21, "Rex Fernando (rex)" <rex@cisco.com> wrote:

> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-rfernando-protocol-buffers-00.txt

Hey, I can do that, too.

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bormann-apparea-bpack-00.txt

How many of these do we need?

(I'm actually quite serious with binarypack, as there is a lot of stuff out there that uses msgpack, and it probably would be a good idea to do a version with IETF change control.  Area of application for me is mostly constrained node/network REST, but of course it is a quite universal hammer.  Not the impact wrench that protocol buffers is :-)

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email