Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-04

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 04 July 2011 06:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 2720D21F8648 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 23:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O7WlzYop-rOB for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 23:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A35621F8636 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 23:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA2CD1ECB41C; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 06:09:02 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 02:08:58 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Message-ID: <20110704060858.GG24564@shinkuro.com>
References: <20110701162416.GB24564@shinkuro.com> <148089D7A073E8A4A9F54B64@PST.JCK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <148089D7A073E8A4A9F54B64@PST.JCK.COM>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-04
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, 04 Jul 2011 06:09:06 -0000

On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 04:00:07PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:

> was probably unwise.  Depending on what the IESG has to say
> (i.e., what Pete tells us), we are contemplating rewriting that
> explanation into RFC 2119 language and simply saying that these
> definitions SHOULD be used in IETF documents and that, if people
> choose to not use them, they MUST define the terms they are
> using exactly and preferably use terminology that does not
> overlap.
> 
> Your thoughts on whether that is a good strategy would be
> welcome.

Either that, or (failing it) adding something the sentence I suggested
(which is just intended to say, "Hey, play nice!"), would be a good
idea, in my opinion.

> that provide normative definitions for terminology used with the
> DNS.  If such a document existed

I'm sure we'd all rejoice were such a document to be written and to
achieve consensus.  But I understand the reasoning.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com