On 3/29/2011 1:24 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
I think this encapsulates what Dave is trying to get across:
Yes, it is MUCH easier for a server developer to stuff in a little more
JavaScript.
Now, you have a 100% proprietary system, with no hope or desire for
interoperability, that gets deployed much faster than someone taking their
extension to the IETF for inclusion in, for example, IMAP. The only reason
one would go for the standard solution is if they want to interoperate with
other vendors. As you point out, there is absolutely no reason for anyone
to participate in the standards process if they have no intention of
interoperating with OTHER implementations.
WFM, within the portion of the issue is seeks to cover.
The two points I would are:
1. This model has more downsides than just no interoperability; I cited them in
my review.
2. Proprietary systems like this often need standards too, albeit ones developed
privately, with private review: Within a company it is typical to have the
mobile code and the server be implemented by different teams and they need to
code against a common spec, hence a protocol stanards...
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf