Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com> Mon, 14 November 2011 10:11 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@qualcomm.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 6947D21F8E1C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:11:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <6EGLvFKEObcp>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.305
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.305 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.294, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 6EGLvFKEObcp for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:11:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3523411E80E5 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:06:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=rg+ietf@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1321265175; x=1352801175; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:date:to:from: subject:cc:content-type:x-random-sig-tag; z=Message-Id:=20<p0624062fcae6925f6fe6@[172.21.1.9]> |In-Reply-To:=20<4EC0D517.3030400@dcrocker.net> |References:=20<20111024161910.8048.2279.idtracker@ietfa. amsl.com>=0D=0A=20<p06240623cae622c69b08@[172.21.1.9]>=09 <4EC0AD84.5060502@dcrocker.net>=0D=0A=20<p0624062acae67c8 72451@[172.21.1.9]>=20<4EC0D517.3030400@dcrocker.net> |X-Mailer:=20Eudora=20for=20Mac=20OS=20X|Date:=20Mon,=201 4=20Nov=202011=2001:42:42=20-0800|To:=20<dcrocker@bbiw.ne t>|From:=20Randall=20Gellens=20<rg+ietf@qualcomm.com> |Subject:=20Re:=20[apps-discuss]=20I-D=20Action:=20draft- ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt|Cc:=20<apps-discuss@ietf.org>, =20Mark=20Nottingham=20<mnot@mnot.net>,=0D=0A=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20<dcrocker@bbiw.net>,=20Dave=20CROCKER=20<dhc@ dcrocker.net>|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D" us-ascii"=20=3B=20format=3D"flowed"|X-Random-Sig-Tag:=201 .0b28; bh=DggFmVGWN6lPN5drA1oQJj8La2TRHW4rkV5ZH8FXfG4=; b=CByo7dRKr6BVoBVRGhCfuRR+HPlIYFrW116DXXaJRVagermOP2CI596n rK1X8fBIB8aOy1t+IJq4lvTrX/WsWJCwYJi/w+J2jVAXivHUan9VtsMRA LugzQ6DwOSPADP3RAPkKK7H70cwZuJAsrBobdiThW9ZE6PdsjZPeuenMY M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6529"; a="137378057"
Received: from ironmsg04-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.19]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2011 02:06:10 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,504,1315206000"; d="scan'208";a="112969965"
Received: from warlock.qualcomm.com ([129.46.50.49]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 14 Nov 2011 02:06:10 -0800
Received: from [172.21.1.9] (myvpn-l-dyp000696dys.ras.qualcomm.com [10.64.135.172]) by warlock.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id pAEA66dT029837; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:06:08 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624062fcae6925f6fe6@[172.21.1.9]>
In-Reply-To: <4EC0D517.3030400@dcrocker.net>
References: <20111024161910.8048.2279.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <p06240623cae622c69b08@[172.21.1.9]> <4EC0AD84.5060502@dcrocker.net> <p0624062acae67c872451@[172.21.1.9]> <4EC0D517.3030400@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:42:42 -0800
To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, dcrocker@bbiw.net, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:11:02 -0000

At 4:45 PM +0800 11/14/11, Dave CROCKER wrote:

>  On 11/14/2011 4:11 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>>  At 1:56 PM +0800 11/14/11, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>>  I think the essence of what you've cited is that the later 
>>> process produces a
>>>  revised specification. Hence, what is produced is not the same thing as was
>>>  getting used. Unfortunately the implication is a practise of 
>>> re-using the name
>>>  without any version indication, which is generally frowned upon, protocol
>>>  technique-wise...
>>
>>  Right, but the answer, I think, is to use a different name for the 
>> standardized
>>  version, not to do away with wider review.
>
>  +1
>
>  (but for clarity:  I, for one, hadn't called for doing away with 
> wider review.)

The current model, with all its flaws, does try to distinguish 
between ad-hoc parameters that anyone can just start using, with no 
review, and standard ones, that have been through wider review.  To 
move to a model that does away with this distinction seems to 
encourage more use of ad-hoc parameters that have not been through 
wide review.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Sorry, no obscene fortunes.  Don't want to offend anyone.
(Now that's obscene!)