I didn't say 0. I said that the 2 flag day argument is bogus. We will have 1 flag day. Do we agree now?
Andreas Sent from Mobile. On Aug 9, 2013, at 21:45, Nick Alexander <nalexan...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 13-08-09 9:33 PM, Andreas Gal wrote: >> Ok. So neither require a flag day. Changing data formats might require >> a flag day. But that would require a flag day in the couchdb world as >> well. In other words the two flag day scenario is a red herring. Do >> you agree? > > No. > > The picl-idp-backed auth story provides no mechanism for provisioning new > clients with full-strength keys of the kind Sync 1.1 expects. We have no > solution better than the existing PAKE pairing operation, which is largely > the impetus for what we are doing. Therefore new auth and old auth clients > are strictly separated. Since the user base most likely to immediately want > to use the new auth system are the people already using Sync 1.1 (correct me > if this assumption is wrong), and we have no way to migrate them to the new > auth system, there needs to be an auth flag day. > > In addition, Sync 1.1 expects records in a certain format, both envelope and > JSON payload. The existing Sync protocol and clients have no support for > negotiating upgrades to either format. We need to change at least the JSON > payload format for the next generation of Sync (and while we're here, handle > negotiating client format updates!). There will be a flag day when old > clients will not be able to sync against the new record format. > > We can have 2 flag days, or we can have 1, but I do not believe we can have 0. > > Nick > _______________________________________________ > Sync-dev mailing list > Sync-dev@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/sync-dev _______________________________________________ Sync-dev mailing list Sync-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/sync-dev
