IETF Logo Mail Archive

[apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis: PS or DS?

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Fri, 02 September 2011 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 4784921F8CC6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 13:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 EO7w+NwWosWZ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 13:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0A1921F8CB8 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 13:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 13:25:37 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 13:25:36 -0700
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis: PS or DS?
Thread-Index: AcxmzCLQt7ErtqSfR3G31kkH06ZYSAC4dqPw
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DFA7F@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20110830041853.24036.37.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110830041853.24036.37.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis: PS or DS?
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, 02 Sep 2011 20:24:01 -0000

RFC3462 is currently DS.  There's some question as to whether or not this revision qualifies to remain at DS, or forces a recycle at PS.

The only material change is the removal of a constraint.  On the face of it, it would seem that this doesn't disqualify it from remaining at DS.  In addition, Ned has said that many implementations ignore the constraint, so it's harmless to remove it.   (Ned, could you elucidate on this in support of one position or the other?)

On the other hand, absent specific data about whether or not this change might break anything, it might be more correct to do a turn back at PS until we get some feedback (or, perhaps, the absence of it).

So, this is a point we need to discuss.

Discussion?

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email