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

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Mon, 21 March 2011 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
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 66E0F28C0EB for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.567
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 dCT066+OzqBe for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B1613A687B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwl42 with SMTP id 42so7735607iwl.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=pqcEx6Wb8U2Qj6smm+SSCEfqfVYjhwmx7ds0Uo2aLio=; b=Chv2q3TjiQT1tBSd8pYSHKtKoRmG2pzlofHQ0XlQrOOpyCDdQ8/+TStNa6Mn9lqeBc LQH72crvgtLj9NHghf91XXY9M14Ssi4T/rmpy784jDq/Y7OsKVqOyO1FrW2nZ6jTi3oP XMidehSmu8jn/HNQSNE4wU+xI42CNmk0z3p6Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=PXKE2VJmd5H4xP+LK8TNkcK2S9JxiJB6gosrRm9+358wjrlaqcU9OgWVMBb/IUIlTo 0pMnQt0g/u5qReuqQJVXjIGqN5/8Za66X0l21v3fSuz7gLSeRoP/b54znbpsOl1R4rNn ico3kmzlD+QKnPJq0skotrLpXe3tyS6Nfra/g=
Received: by 10.42.18.193 with SMTP id y1mr7012102ica.415.1300725727426; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.164.74 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4D877D30.9090502@stpeter.im>
References: <4D87612E.3090900@dcrocker.net> <AANLkTik_f-4E8eoWbY2SowzTUdk53L3oiLZwFgoFS20y@mail.gmail.com> <4D876B4C.5070706@dcrocker.net> <4D877D30.9090502@stpeter.im>
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:40:01 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinWe6DPRF4sY1F1mhCed1cT52ZGvkQwDzjQNVoa@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, 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: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:43:13 -0000

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:30, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> This is what I see, too: each service will have its own API / protocol,
> resulting in wonderful vendor lock-in for the service provider but a
> distinct lack of interoperability across services. We've just moved the
> problem elsewhere.

What interoperability do you need?  This isn't peer to peer, it's
client/server.  All of the servers have de facto converged on the same
client capabilities (http, html etc).  It's already standardized.

Granted there are new scripting languages all the time, and some
browsers like new transport protocols, but those don't lead to
interoperability problems.  They lead to implementor problems, having
to do different versions of software for different environments.  Is
that what you're pointing to?  Would you say that iPhone and Android
should have the same app environments?