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

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Tue, 22 March 2011 06:52 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.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 01DDD3A68EC for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, 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 GSKvxEcm4f9B for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 79FA23A68E0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2011 06:53:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (EHLO [10.255.135.249]) [192.100.123.77] by mail.gmx.net (mp042) with SMTP; 22 Mar 2011 07:53:32 +0100
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+NQBglO/eNbOgc5HqpztPc0DOJWRj6Nlr24i8eCJ fcCLrsczkCODJD
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D882781.8020605@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:53:28 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <00B4DE85-D820-4BA3-A460-7C847734A06A@gmx.net>
References: <4D87612E.3090900@dcrocker.net> <4D881C04.2080406@qualcomm.com> <4D882781.8020605@dcrocker.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, 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 06:52:03 -0000

Hi Dave, 

the abstract cannot obviously cover all aspects of the talk, as you know. 

Jonathan & Harald, who are among the speakers, have good knowledge about the IETF. They have made significant contributions and they had run into a few of the issues we are discussing on this list.

In our writeup http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tschofenig-post-standardization-00 we have not only described the positive effects of the trend we are believing to see but expressed also some concerns. There are also cases where the current Web model is not able to compete with native applications. We talk about those as well in the document.  

In any case, we thought that this topic is relevant enough for the IETF community to have a dialog and to hear whether you have a view about the topic as well. As this discussion shows, you obviously do. 

The time could not have been better given the RTCWeb BOF that is also going to happen in Prague. 

Ciao
Hannes


On Mar 22, 2011, at 6:37 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> 
> On 3/21/2011 8:48 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> I sent this to the IAB a few weeks ago. We haven't had much conversation (they
>> responded, but the firehose of stuff before the IETF meeting kept me from
>> replying until recently), but I thought you all would be amused.
> 
> 
> The degree of disconnect about architecture and protocol issues makes this a bit challenging to view with humor.  (It's tempting to counter that that's not really true since it is so easy to make fun of the situation, but that's not what you meant and it's not what I'd find productive...)
> 
> The larger issue I see is that the views being put forward for the talk well might be reasonable, with sufficient qualifiers and very careful language, but no qualifiers are being offered.  Instead the language asserts universals, and these most certainly are not correct.
> 
> There could be a rather interesting discussion about these issues, given a reasonable mix of people and a reasonable format for exploration and debate. The current format is cast more for selling a specific view than for understanding pros and cons and tradeoffs.
> 
> d/
> -- 
> 
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss