Re: [apps-discuss] Feeling kind of confused about draft-merrick-jms-uri-12

John C Klensin <john@jck.com> Thu, 27 January 2011 07:17 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jck.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25ABD3A6955 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 23:17:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CVsTD9tpJiy2 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 23:17:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3052E3A6945 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 23:17:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1PiM9g-000DVF-MH; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:20:32 -0500
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:20:32 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Message-ID: <5869A181BE49612A2C0C7836@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110126212046.0c26cae8@resistor.net>
References: <AANLkTikaHw7GKiAn1B4Uu5sytyzmi97ExejzfDT82UzO@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110126212046.0c26cae8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Feeling kind of confused about draft-merrick-jms-uri-12
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 07:17:34 -0000

--On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 21:30 -0800 S Moonesamy
<sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

>> draft, with one small change, is being published as an
>> Informational RFC.
> 
> According to the document write-up:
> 
>    "The document had 2 reviews from the Apps Review team
>     and most of the comments were addressed, although reviewers
>     have disagreed with authors on some philosophical points.
>     The document was also discussed on the uri-review@ietf.org
>     mailing list."
> 
> Which points in the review (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg0
> 2090.html ) were considered as philosophical points?
> 
>> So, what is the purpose of doing apps-area reviews, given
>> that this one produced no observable effects?
> 
> I'll leave it to the Application Area Directors to address
> that question.

Remember too that, as Mark has already pointed out in a
different way, the main point of a provisional registration is
to lower the odds that the same protocol identifier string will
be used to designate two different protocols. 

I am not advising this in any way and I personally don't think
it would be worth the effort, but, in the interest of procedural
knowledge and consistency, RFC 2026 does give anyone who feels
strongly about this decision the right to appeal it.

    john