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

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Mon, 21 March 2011 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.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 C38B928C0D9 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 DZVb6xXmiff7 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net (peirce.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:2e0:81ff:fe29:d16a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BEE3A68C4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6AD01168090; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:05:04 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at peirce.dave.cridland.net
Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 756POM0KEcKx; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:05:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from puncture (puncture.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:221:85ff:fe3f:1696]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C4B3B1168067; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:05:01 +0000 (GMT)
References: <4D87612E.3090900@dcrocker.net> <560B27DE-B188-45D6-AC91-51A643FD8520@gmx.net> <4D8785D2.5070306@dcrocker.net> <A4DB77E0-3041-44D5-B232-6420ACF02978@gmx.net> <AANLkTikkLBDJc4s6+okGqp-8ZbZahfen+C7ZkBJuAjjN@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikkLBDJc4s6+okGqp-8ZbZahfen+C7ZkBJuAjjN@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <6266.1300730701.805233@puncture>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:05:01 +0000
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>, Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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 18:03:34 -0000

On Mon Mar 21 17:51:01 2011, Scott Brim wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 13:33, Hannes Tschofenig
> <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
> > We describe a model that is deployed today (the Web model with  
> HTTP/HTML + JavaScript) that allows shifting the interoperability  
> need away from the client.
> 
> I suspect this is the gist.  It used to be that we required standard
> protocols at the endpoint.  As Dave's mention of IM clients shows,
> that's necessary if there is no coordination among services.  But if
> there is coordination among services, such that using any one  
> service
> allows you to reach anyone on any service, then you don't need
> standardized UIs.

With XMPP, an XMPP server will talk with other XMPP servers - this  
means that HTTP cannot be used. (And if anyone suggests S2S/BOSH I  
will throw up).

But XMPP clients also talk with other clients, in sometimes  
client-specific ways over variable services.

Thus to no small degree the XMPP experience is governed by the  
client, rather than the server, and the overall experience is most  
certainly a product of both.

This is also similar with mail - you may think of email as just a  
blob of functionality, but I can assure you that there are both good  
and bad email clients, and good and bad email services.

By restricting client/server to be just browser-based, you eliminate  
the ability of users to select a user interface of their choice  
orthogonal to the service, and you also create a down-pressure on  
functionality via standardized protocols - hence Google Mail's IMAP  
support is very much a lowest common denominator - it is sufficient,  
instead of offering the richer support it might.

This is not to say that a web-based interface is not a good thing,  
and a useful thing, too - there are plenty such interfaces for both  
email and XMPP. In fact, in XMPP there are many more because we  
devised standards for how browser-based clients could connect to  
servers (see BOSH, for example).

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade