Re: [apps-discuss] IETF technical plenary: the end of application protocols

Dave CROCKER <> Tue, 22 March 2011 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26DB28C0F5 for <>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.592
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5syS7U3IY8vO for <>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7113A6930 for <>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2M4bObC006939 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:37:29 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:37:21 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] IETF technical plenary: the end of application protocols
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 04:35:58 -0000

On 3/21/2011 8:48 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> I sent this to the IAB a few weeks ago. We haven't had much conversation (they
> responded, but the firehose of stuff before the IETF meeting kept me from
> replying until recently), but I thought you all would be amused.

The degree of disconnect about architecture and protocol issues makes this a bit 
challenging to view with humor.  (It's tempting to counter that that's not 
really true since it is so easy to make fun of the situation, but that's not 
what you meant and it's not what I'd find productive...)

The larger issue I see is that the views being put forward for the talk well 
might be reasonable, with sufficient qualifiers and very careful language, but 
no qualifiers are being offered.  Instead the language asserts universals, and 
these most certainly are not correct.

There could be a rather interesting discussion about these issues, given a 
reasonable mix of people and a reasonable format for exploration and debate. 
The current format is cast more for selling a specific view than for 
understanding pros and cons and tradeoffs.


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking