On Jan 3, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Chris Karlof <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > I see today listed as the deadline for a decision on a transition plan. I > haven't seen significant discussion on this over the last day or two. > I've also been asking for some clarity and getting a lot of different answers. Thanks for raising the issue here! > tl;dr Just let Existing Sync users be. Support FxA Sync and Existing Sync > side by side in Fx29 with no attempt to upsell or transition from Existing > Sync -> FxA Sync. > >From a server-side perspective, we can support any of these plans, but we do >need something nailed down so that we can plan hardware appropriately. It also raises the question of what FxA Sync is under this model. Simply the same Sync backend, with FxA auth and key stretching replacing the secret key? If the protocol remains the same, your suggestion can be simplified even further - we could add FxA support to existing sync servers and have everything running in the same place (still need to keep accounts separate, because of the encryption change, though). Will there ever be a window to make improvements to the backend protocol? (Note: I'm not advocating for these now - I know the time pressure we're under - but, we're making that another pain point in the future) This approach also represents no encouragement for users to sign up for FxA - if you already have current sync, there's no incentive to upgrade (its a bit of a hassle) until we make you. If one of the goals is to use existing sync users to drive initial adoption of FxA, that will not be represented in this plan. But otherwise, it's a good idea, and I like the fact that it'll continue to support our external-server users. Toby _______________________________________________ Sync-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/sync-dev
