Re: [apps-discuss] Non-proprietary sync (was Re: Is e-mail going to die?

Hi Michiel,

I'm very interested in this area; I think we need open standards here desperately.

I potentially have a lot of feedback for you (both editorial and more substantial), but wanted to first know: what is the remoteStorage community's intent in publishing this draft? 

I.e., do you think you're nearly done, and just need to publish a specification? Are you willing to consider substantial changes to the specification, even if it breaks your current implementations if there's good reason?

Also, what kind of timeline are you on -- i.e., do you have particular milestones you want to hit?

Finally, what's the preferred venue for feedback and discussion? Will you or anyone else from remoteStorage be coming to the Berlin meeting?

Cheers,

On 17/06/2013, at 9:02 PM, Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org> wrote:

> On 2013-06-17 10:09, Dave Raggett wrote:
> > Non-proprietary sync is the next step
> 
> That is exactly what "remote storage" tries to propose: a non-proprietary protocol that does something like Dropbox/GoogleDrive/SkyDrive over cross-origin HTTP.
> 
> We uploaded the -01 version of the I-D last week:
> 
>     http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-dejong-remotestorage-01.txt
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/