Re: [apps-discuss] AppsAWG status, and communicating with the chairs
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 01 August 2011 15:36 UTC
Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.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 E24E421F8B42 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 08:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.962, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 xsXoXHIolt3E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 08:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F3921F8B3C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 08:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.1.109] (unknown [67.111.52.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C58CD22E257; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 11:36:37 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <6ebd37h4okaio9cbs7m160e6q1i2tgqdph@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:36:35 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F8B87038-028B-4B41-9CB5-4E7F5552067F@mnot.net>
References: <CALaySJ+Bb5_5HS+hqO3v5EK+JMmMCYcNY1o7uuQeZ_-bz1=TRA@mail.gmail.com> <6ebd37h4okaio9cbs7m160e6q1i2tgqdph@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] AppsAWG status, and communicating with the chairs
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, 01 Aug 2011 15:36:39 -0000
On 01/08/2011, at 6:48 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Barry Leiba wrote: >> Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-xdash > > Why should this be a standalone document instead of having the ideas > there in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs> or > some other document that explains issues around extensibility within > a broader context than how a "X-" convention can be problematic? Because the people who need to read the document would be even less likely to do so if it were hidden there. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
- [apps-discuss] AppsAWG status, and communicating … Barry Leiba
- Re: [apps-discuss] AppsAWG status, and communicat… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [apps-discuss] AppsAWG status, and communicat… Barry Leiba
- Re: [apps-discuss] AppsAWG status, and communicat… Mark Nottingham