On Jun 22 2011, 6:39 pm, "Neil T. Dantam" 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.
