Re: [apps-discuss] Experimental (was - Re: Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme)

Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Thu, 14 April 2016 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.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 2B97A12DD2D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pnR-GKh2wJWF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A91E12DC3F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3E36G46012343 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:06:17 -0700
References: <20160413200825.15190.qmail@ary.lan> <14F6E2A0-8F9A-4855-9DA3-BBA383196790@mnot.net> <CACweHNCT+yTE7JoFQwrmaz4+WcAni4Xe=NV+KzhMu5w0g6tuRA@mail.gmail.com> <570F0057.3030409@dcrocker.net> <CACweHND_WLDocx0ozhGisCGw7dUeP4bzU3Fx1sxA=tzaZk+iZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <570F0928.4020307@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:06:16 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACweHND_WLDocx0ozhGisCGw7dUeP4bzU3Fx1sxA=tzaZk+iZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/8eiweIz8Y2wGCM3LXFXneqomVDk>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Experimental (was - Re: Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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 Apr 2016 03:06:19 -0000

On 4/13/2016 7:55 PM, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
>     This is why focusing on bits over the wire is better than talking
>     about software implementation details.  If the 'different ways' mean
>     different bits over the wire, then they are using different formats
>     or different protocols.  And they won't interoperate.
>
>     If they generate/parse the same bits and same semantics over the
>     wire, this we don't care how the built the software to do it,
>     because they /do/ interoperate.
>
>
> The 'different ways' are actually different bits over the wire. Mostly
> those are the bits that weren't part of the original spec, but were
> widely deemed useful/necessary. I've tried to sidestep too much
> controversy by continuing not to specify them, but I did write down some
> of the ways some folk have decided to represent them.


OK.  My advice:

      If there is a common core of bits over the wire that they all do 
do, but then some /additional/ bits over the wire that are different, 
then write the spec for the common parts and note (but do not document) 
that there are various independent extensions.

      Treat any effort to document the variations as completely separate 
from the common core.


d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net