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

SM <sm@resistor.net> Tue, 22 March 2011 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139E13A6835 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.368
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.368 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.231, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GZ0bb3DM3lHJ for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (eland-1-pt.tunnel.tserv15.lax1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:c:d43::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C603A683F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5.Beta0) with ESMTP id p2MNQX4x014357; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1300836400; bh=17bHfiQN4wS31nzjHeZ5wBNnw7HiLNDyqsiq/Hm07lU=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=I01hz5UsROG+Z8q0XZCMkYOh8ThDdChjGFcCJuvNNBIyPV91/2B5biQW/PLfmskR3 Aos5RaIipvdW3UNAxO/wL/5PTuyy2v5rWA6J9Ma8niKUbGxg73Ix49y8OaW0EEcxbC V1rW5AKVr21KgMEOOJyngCQPH5q+VZIOKwn05spU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1300836400; bh=17bHfiQN4wS31nzjHeZ5wBNnw7HiLNDyqsiq/Hm07lU=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=H1F+wm+49CkbJCKnXFiJujMdSLLPuk2Zj63a1xF+DCdu1FNgeJyxP/KpUedxhZRd/ fLBvT5t4HGaeyOD3jDfBzThwLarTamV4PCD5gvJjCLqopLelZC3LhPEELZ51mSOBVs +ECJVkbK1UxW06pQFdgMSLx2v2xXcdCsoueg7Sec=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110322125600.0d7e0050@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:22:22 -0700
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B3040C3-BA44-4AA8-A0BC-395BA0E6DDB7@gmx.net>
References: <4D87612E.3090900@dcrocker.net> <4D881C04.2080406@qualcomm.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110321223051.0e352650@resistor.net> <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B450404241E@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110322002954.0ca26cc8@resistor.net> <4B3040C3-BA44-4AA8-A0BC-395BA0E6DDB7@gmx.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] IETF technical plenary: the end of application protocols
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:25:14 -0000

Hi Hannes,
At 02:12 22-03-2011, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>We had to find some term to describe this paradigm and concept.

Ok.

>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.

One key point here is the "degree of interoperability".  That might 
sum up the various positions we have seen in this discussion.

>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?

I prefer not to answer yes to being a Web person. :-)

I agree that the limits are changing rapidly.  Mark commented on the 
evolution of the browser and lock-in of data [1].  As we move from 
protocol to service, the code is the least of our concerns.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02396.html