IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 14 June 2012 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18AF021F86BE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e-1Qx+gV0AW2 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F61321F8681 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5EIT6GA004059 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1339698551; i=@resistor.net; bh=Pg5IxTpiyiWlcb10IwhYbV6oSPVjV5lBWDelptiAPjk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=YXak4XCQW7/otFBX1z3iEXs1LSLPSR932VHoj47EqnbVX5P4/778BQWnXfA+SaTT7 rleOev8s8+zYvfo+7a6b+oNQAgBkWAOkIih0xRhivNzHZ4rYSI2K/vX38icEppVmQS Gz29tr7aWB1Z0zs9RIeX5sykWynYQ5iXeU1NvGMc=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1339698551; i=@resistor.net; bh=Pg5IxTpiyiWlcb10IwhYbV6oSPVjV5lBWDelptiAPjk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=edpgsZjAb+oyAOHdJZziWkanjYdSxo0UnC/+qZY6gnZTYBf4QbwNONRRvsghmPCe7 qapP04FJZMFHhC3Vs+WJkHk6l2lJ1SDBXqvNgTMq6O/xxOM6mjMHCu4bjKWUJwYK39 VW01qNbsmmXQSAC3gW8pXHtqegpJWu8YX6jBQMMY=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120614111103.09b6e3b8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:29:01 -0700
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwa5KOyfg+mFH6WaS_-_6AO=3z7FkwQW-T1nebjwWhyxyw@mail.g mail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwY1DCP9RY7cykwrPi48A_1h_FJUXo5eRWkn3Rw=rFXpBw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVBuET9h-QHEtS=genmJnJ6bfKk=KD0bTJQvZJApAsY_ww@mail.gmail.com> <4FD08CA3.6080504@dcrocker.net> <01OGEZDG0T8M000058@mauve.mrochek.com> <4FD29DF5.5010206@dcrocker.net> <CAC4RtVAbC64Bx67b6OD4LApy9p_K2xqAZYGAETHxXZE5gY0-oA@mail.gmail.com> <01OGGS87OI0Q000058@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAC4RtVBReXuj473yvkNt3nOL6AyEPkZpyjqgsd2-fF5SiFs_aQ@mail.gmail.com> <03a901cd487e$908c37c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4FD75939.6060200@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120614075629.07eb21f0@resistor.net> <CAL0qLwa5KOyfg+mFH6WaS_-_6AO=3z7FkwQW-T1nebjwWhyxyw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:29:15 -0000

Hi Murray,
At 11:00 14-06-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>Well now that's an interesting question.  Can we say something like 
>"FCFS, except IANA should probably check with ADs when they receive 
>requests for status changes"?  Has that been done before?

I don't recall seeing that before.  There is an IESG override for 
IANA policies.  That could be invoked by the ADs to handle such requests.

Instead of looking into how to reclassify, I suggest discussing what 
is considered as deprecated and what is considered as historic.  It 
can be used to assess whether the cost is worthwhile.

Regards,
-sm

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status