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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf