IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 15 June 2012 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
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 3605E21F8857 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.84
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.137, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 1BEBdHbEXxQ4 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FCE921F8867 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lagv3 with SMTP id v3so2255021lag.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xl3ofYSRxfCSsz+3jQOrGwrt79MPks02gYTR+wEVsxE=; b=zqyOo1DA+zEBFhZmhnavxpDAub0snbHp+h/CXbraW3wJdkdciD0TgqqK2VW3NtYaE0 fKamsd9kJFTeMmpxpdDn64AyVllmY8LAL+wPcSQfGyyws552elfjVqf1pjQkUxjFwQZw Va8keOMRNaNOspEVnPXqktIVylxF9p3MAYpEmgW04kf6lRHqCzxhrwgiKSytCz8OsDI7 lfGhMpjq7ap6FFv6WmFNOnJdzmpybgiDgA/rBpIpbhBE0kW1IgpwHVuXt8tobI2RTwEt 82Ar4D90/SqfmBYAE/prKI0iBN+cD4TNc9gGNG1aV7IkGTsCFUVmo+jh9jXf4ZYiHVme yEtg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.42.164 with SMTP id p4mr2737292lbl.54.1339773051156; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.48.104 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwa5KOyfg+mFH6WaS_-_6AO=3z7FkwQW-T1nebjwWhyxyw@mail.gmail.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>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:10:51 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 395RKfZCfHF-IgEZQvOLfVTtWKc
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVBs1rbY7N=5xU6cWj4LJ3HBubWO7Fjkoo-w2Szf_ESVLw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
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: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:10:53 -0000

>> The draft does not mention anything about how "deprecated" or "historic"
>> are to be handed.  If the WG decides for FCFS, for example, how will the
>> "Use" be handled?
>
> 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?

That, in effect, is "Expert Review, and the current App ADs are the
designated experts."

So: No, let's not do that.

If we're worried about who's allowed to modify existing registrations,
you can say that in the registry definition:
FCFS for new registrations, and existing registrations can be updated
by the original requestor or by IESG Approval.

Barry

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