Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 26 January 2012 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 E852A21F85A7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:32:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 gFOG3dQVwn-S for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:32:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62FD321F858D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:32:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squire.local (unknown [64.101.72.114]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5415D40058; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:42:41 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4F217B2F.8090708@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:11:27 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Zoltan Ordogh <zordogh@rim.com>
References: <4EE2430E.4080501@isode.com> <4F1F1A72.1090302@isode.com> <1DE983233DBBEB4A81F18FABD8208D76226DCA24@XMB107ACNC.rim.net>
In-Reply-To: <1DE983233DBBEB4A81F18FABD8208D76226DCA24@XMB107ACNC.rim.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt
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: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:32:54 -0000

On 1/26/12 7:58 AM, Zoltan Ordogh wrote:
> Looks "perfect" to me; I have only one question on section 3, bullet 2:
> How would you know that a name is unused?

How about this?

"SHOULD employ meaningful names that they have reason to believe are
currently unused"

You can't prove a negative, so that text is more actionable (e.g., you
could do a quick Internet search to avoid obvious overlaps).

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/