Re: [apps-discuss] [appsdir] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-01 and draft-moonesamy-rfc2919bis-01

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Wed, 18 January 2012 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 BD0D021F869D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.583
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, 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 Yju9B0v-Q5Ht for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CAF921F8585 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:23 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:31 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:30 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] [appsdir] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-01 and draft-moonesamy-rfc2919bis-01
Thread-Index: AczWBZ5pdPQZzZPkTVaS+22tCY/4OgAChhcA
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C158EA@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120105165019.063fa0a8@resistor.net> <20120106063934.80082.qmail@joyce.lan> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C1578F@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120108011725.0bfaf2b8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120118080640.097bb400@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120118080640.097bb400@resistor.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [appsdir] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-01 and draft-moonesamy-rfc2919bis-01
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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:47:39 -0000

Sounds like a good step forward.

One thing I might suggest including, either in the Abstract, Introduction or an Appendix, is an explanation of why this is being reissued.  In particular, you've said your main impetus for doing this is the URL-URI evolution, so I imagine it would be helpful to highlight that in some way.

-MSK