IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Pete and Barry: now it is up to you (was: draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00 and our lawn -- feedback?)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 17 February 2014 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622281A051A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:08:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DIUy7ACVcNoJ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:08:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE631A01F9 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:07:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hn9so2742760wib.6 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:07:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=eSPbkpoyfGUgNMm/Q+sM2Q2PFuo5W/3oNVXnxPaWB6k=; b=lIcByJ/JUkUp1eRz+yrPX7292cgLUurHBZjemHBr+lxYtgb+z1f4CSnjw8dq+68cIN 5WQASGed8TM5mhkVDuo4BRuZiZN8lqboAZVCUsB/sD1XCkx70a8UbL+t5f1BZQAa3CBy i/8J7IJQdO5dGoTbsA7Oq3DeVsYQcog+zRvZvex6m5vu0s82HchXlYRUkaNd8XOESD+r JirOamxDsr12hWqwmkiIcW+N34mPNIISWq9tx+RxyJWqNZUH694OQQ6Kc00Id1Z3QSC3 SSv2Qes//qFFBjE/K2Vxekg5mw/36WlsaS+ouZ71PBqXSy+I5XDbp77z166RlAANSqIy IC6g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.187.237 with SMTP id fv13mr14456361wic.26.1392664061505; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:07:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.90.132 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:07:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <0DB8F884-5E50-4DA2-AD0B-C07EBB2C8F47@vpnc.org>
References: <20140216035539.2686.qmail@joyce.lan> <53009C37.3030009@ninebynine.org> <0DB8F884-5E50-4DA2-AD0B-C07EBB2C8F47@vpnc.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:07:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbnGYv6LR3muS+j0WTUT-yF4sOCyPSzWbVS4z5Ryr=w-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c25a9cad8aa604f29ede11"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/NAnruE0dTFg4eTQWxEMO2bvNDgg
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Pete and Barry: now it is up to you (was: draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00 and our lawn -- feedback?)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 17 Feb 2014 19:08:21 -0000

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> There is clearly a question of whether the WEIRDS WG will be allowed to
> use their current approach or be forced to change to templates. That
> question cannot be answered by more messages on this mailing list.
>
> draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-08 has a protocol that would not be
> acceptable if draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn were already a BCP.
> That determination should be answered sooner rather than later so that the
> WG can progress with their protocol.


Feedback about the content of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn is
perfectly appropriate for this list.  I don't believe there's any need to
get the ADs to rule on anything at this point.

Feedback specific to draft-ietf-weirds-using-http and how it resolves this
question should appear on that WG's mailing list, and not here.  I don't
believe we need an AD ruling on anything there yet either; the WG is still
doing its work on this document.

-MSK, co-chair of both WGs

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email