IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-appswg-xdash-03

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 11 March 2012 03:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@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 A6FB921F85AF; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:37:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.959
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.959 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.652, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 1wGRDMn1Tscv; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:37:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A5221F85AE; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:37:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-58-62.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.58.62]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2B3bmOf019525 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:37:54 -0800
Message-ID: <4F5C1DF9.2060703@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:37:29 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <62FF481C5AD21C3F683CD2B9@PST.JCK.COM> <4F5B9FF5.7040209@dcrocker.net> <4F5BA20D.30304@qualcomm.com> <B47E8B2B6E9CA7E84099E605@PST.JCK.COM> <4F5C1D10.8050305@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F5C1D10.8050305@qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; 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]); Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:37:54 -0800 (PST)
Cc: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash.all@tools.ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-appswg-xdash-03
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 03:37:56 -0000

On 3/10/2012 7:33 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> No, you've misunderstood my distinction, which means we haven't gotten the
> wording quite right. When I said "type", I meant "type of *content* being
> named". So, "+xml" is indicating a "type" of data or content. "Extension" is a
> status. It's how the *name* is being used, not what the *content* is.


+1

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email