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

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

On 3/21/2011 9:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> One is that it mandates full-time connectivity.
>
> No; it does not mandate full-time connectivity. It only mandates connectivity
> between the client and the server.

??? That's the connectivity I am referring to.


>  For example, look at your Web-based email

I don't use web-based mail.  I realize that that mode is extremely popular and 
that it is a useful mode, but I find it problematic, for a number of the reasons 
we've been discussing on this thread.

One of the issues this highlights is the need to be very careful not to tout the 
benefits of something as universal when, in fact, it has restricted utility.


> account (like Gmail). The client-to-server interaction indeed requires
> connectivity. However, it does not require full end-to-end community to work.

I do not understand what distinction you are drawing.


>> The other is that protocols that it says are no longer needed are in fact
>> still needed in some form, albeit as a layer above HTTP, rather than TCP.
>
> We are not saying that the protocols are not needed at all anymore. However,
> the need for standardization shifts.

Actually, that really is what the announcement implies.


>> On the other hand, it does tend to encourage an explosion of competing,
>> incompatible application protocols, making for rather remarkable burdens
>> on servers and clients.
>
> Not really. It allows people to innovate at full speed. There is no need to
> go through a 5 year standardization effort for a protocol extension when you
> can make it available to others easily (without even letting the user to
> download and instal a new application).

No one said that standardization-prior-to-use was a preferred model.  I suspect 
you are confusing architectural issues with alternatives for developing and 
standardizing interoperable protocols.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net