IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Sat, 16 June 2012 06:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.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 8625921F8568 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.252, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 WTm+rY-dYnBO for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD4B21F8564 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OGQD8GEP40003SGA@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="iso-8859-1"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OGPLORC04W000058@mauve.mrochek.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01OGQD8CQZTW000058@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:13:32 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:10:51 -0400" <CAC4RtVBs1rbY7N=5xU6cWj4LJ3HBubWO7Fjkoo-w2Szf_ESVLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwY1DCP9RY7cykwrPi48A_1h_FJUXo5eRWkn3Rw=rFXpBw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVBuET9h-QHEtS=genmJnJ6bfKk=KD0bTJQvZJApAsY_ww@mail.gmail.com> <4FD08CA3.6080504@dcrocker.net> <01OGEZDG0T8M000058@mauve.mrochek.com> <4FD29DF5.5010206@dcrocker.net> <CAC4RtVAbC64Bx67b6OD4LApy9p_K2xqAZYGAETHxXZE5gY0-oA@mail.gmail.com> <01OGGS87OI0Q000058@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAC4RtVBReXuj473yvkNt3nOL6AyEPkZpyjqgsd2-fF5SiFs_aQ@mail.gmail.com> <03a901cd487e$908c37c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4FD75939.6060200@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120614075629.07eb21f0@resistor.net> <CAL0qLwa5KOyfg+mFH6WaS_-_6AO=3z7FkwQW-T1nebjwWhyxyw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVBs1rbY7N=5xU6cWj4LJ3HBubWO7Fjkoo-w2Szf_ESVLw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state
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: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 06:17:07 -0000

> >> The draft does not mention anything about how "deprecated" or "historic"
> >> are to be handed.  If the WG decides for FCFS, for example, how will the
> >> "Use" be handled?
> >
> > Well now that's an interesting question.  Can we say something like "FCFS,
> > except IANA should probably check with ADs when they receive requests for
> > status changes"?  Has that been done before?

> That, in effect, is "Expert Review, and the current App ADs are the
> designated experts."

> So: No, let's not do that.

> If we're worried about who's allowed to modify existing registrations,
> you can say that in the registry definition:
> FCFS for new registrations, and existing registrations can be updated
> by the original requestor or by IESG Approval.

That's much better.

				Ned

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status