On Jun 22 2011, 6:39 pm, "Neil T. Dantam" <mechs...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/22/2011 08:29 AM, Thiago wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'm writing this to ask if others agree that publishing Protocol > > Buffers language and encoding as an IETF RFC would be a good idea. > > I think a protobuf RFC would be fantastic!
I also think a protobuf RFC would be fantastic. It would also make it much easier to specify the use of protobuf inside other standards. I am currently writing a RFC for another Google project which uses Protobuf and the chances of I think the chances of that becoming a standard when Protobuf is not are fairly remote. > > One of the questions I was asked when suggesting to adopt PB was: "Is > > this a standard or just a project that could be abandoned by the > > creators/maintainers at some time?" I know it's open source and anyone > > could continue to work on the code, but I think publishing it as a RFC > > would help it being adopted. > > It does seem highly unlikely that Google, or any of the rest of us > who've built up an infrastructure around Protocol Buffers, will abandon > it anytime soon. An RFC, however, would certainly clarify this > commitment. And while the current documentation is sufficient for > building a compatible implementation, formalizing the requirements seems > like the right thing to do if we want to Play Nice (tm) with everyone else. > > If there's interest and agreement to do this, I would be delighted to help. > > -- > Neil > Dantamhttp://www.cc.gatech.edu/~ndantam3/http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~ndantam3/docs/s-protobuf/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
