Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Mon, 16 January 2012 16:12 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 BE18421F869C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:12:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 aGzZKU2knTuK for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:12:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4273921F869A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:12:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OAUJQ7J47K000VUG@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:12:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OARPS2OYZK000HW1@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:12:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <01OAUJQ57QIA000HW1@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:09:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:46:12 -0800" <4F132D04.1020003@dcrocker.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; Format=flowed
References: <20120114235207.20340.qmail@joyce.lan> <61D306C70A44794D8930CCB6@PST.JCK.COM> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201142235000.1943@joyce.lan> <4F132D04.1020003@dcrocker.net>
To: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry
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, 16 Jan 2012 16:12:46 -0000

> Folks,


> On 1/14/2012 7:55 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> > It's certainly time for a trace field registry. And I suppose that if we
> > have one, adding new trace fields isn't that big a deal.


> It would help for folks to explain what the specific need for a "trace fields"
> registry is.  I'm not seeing it.


> A registry is for the purpose of coordination.  It allows participants to know
> what exists, either for:

>       a)  discovering to use the information, or

>       b)  discovery to avoid conflicts in assigning new values


> Registries incur a cost, so the associated benefit needs to be quite clear.

>       1.  What coordination purpose will be served by the new registry?


> We already have a registry to fields[1], so the 'trace' registry would be
> redundant with a subset of the that existing registry.  Redundancy is usually bad.

>       2.  Why is redundancy acceptable, here?


I have to agree with John Levine here - why can't this just be an added flag in
the existiing header registry. The cost of that should be *far* lower than a
new registry. In fact after experience with having additional purpose-specific
media type registries (something we should never have allowed), I am *strongly* 
opposed to overlapping registries of any sort. (Right now I owe IANA a response
about how in the blazes to address the current multiple registries for media
types.)

				Ned