IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-04

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Mon, 16 April 2012 02:07 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 16D6721F87FF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.456
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, 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 KpJCpv8LF3ZR for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F229A21F8808 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OECWUGIZFK00Y7QH@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OE0NBOM18G00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:07:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01OECWUEC9CY00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:05:13 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:59:48 -0700" <6.2.5.6.2.20120415153915.092fbb50@resistor.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120412232341.0ae76d78@elandnews.com> <01OECNUHC01O00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120415153915.092fbb50@resistor.net>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-04
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 Apr 2012 02:07:19 -0000

> BTW, there isn't a sentence in the Abstract or
> Introduction in -05 about this document obsoleting RFC 4288.  That
> may have to be added.

Another sort point with both John Klensin and myself. This "requirement" (it is
actually nothing of the sort) is not just pointless, it's outright
inappropriate. We managed to publish the EAI specifications without such
language and we're going to push hard to do that here as well.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email