Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft

"J.D. Falk" <jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org> Fri, 15 April 2011 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 625CFE0716 for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zpcBVQKWeYiI for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ocelope.disgruntled.net (ocelope.disgruntled.net [97.107.131.76]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E8D2E0690 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.11.34] (c-76-126-154-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.126.154.212]) (authenticated bits=0) by ocelope.disgruntled.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p3FIQ4vN013914 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:26:07 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.6.0 ocelope.disgruntled.net p3FIQ4vN013914
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cybernothing.org; s=triac; t=1302891967; bh=0UQ07+USBkJYqlznW/gt5FBrS2ByEVeTYiknH33Ca vg=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=dfpHpXm9CpNt fsfsg3nUsyVG8faJwqUNjEe1B4rjh384KymfP9gjDMRFzQ9FI3xoSA8ZT7wq+EG6/qg 3+sg+X4iyOWZLaYcCO1muaTFT5BfVO6ovqeCocjo5n63D+MyAhXXLnUQW/EZgMlh6jx wsydGrPrqWa/lzb4Ntpq5m/qE=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org>
In-Reply-To: <C9CE3E39.7663%styler@mimecast.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:26:03 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B33F029D-838F-445B-A0BA-B5F461A28B45@cybernothing.org>
References: <C9CE3E39.7663%styler@mimecast.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft
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: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:26:09 -0000

On Apr 15, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Simon Tyler wrote:

>> On 4/15/2011 9:54 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>>> I've heard the suggestion of LWP - Least Worst Practise - before.
>> 
>> 
>> I like that /much/ better than what I suggested.  Concise, accurate and
>> appropriately apologetic.
> 
> I like this to. It sums it all perfectly - there is no right solution to
> most of these problems. A best practise implies goodness. A least worst
> practise implies the minimum badness which is eactly the problem.

+1

But in the meantime, I think the BCP stream is the right place for this document.

--
J.D. Falk
the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions