IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Applicability Statements

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 12 May 2011 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 9ACEEE06C8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.617
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.617 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.640, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KdyVKM-Bgnrx for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcahe.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2126BE0679 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16776B0082 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=cryptonector.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s= cryptonector.com; b=RKFUouG5A8yeeihz7ga3rQMn8vFQn/3kjiWYXDN73FT0 lWBk/JsCLgy/rl6ibAe6qfjlgRadF4akja+udMvZ9l8HdKjpKTDRtbW3awTvAks8 +lnm1Us0ksqR3a6lUdM667FJZDr5lD9jQGQlGGUI27uqfQlF0LTD1AkuuLfWSD0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=T2oehcTA/AjHAbKj1rhsLptmMSg=; b=Y4zgImCnSdc bvR9nlvwUy3CMraRWW/uXgXcuycvXZistPmFzdhfQAEC4tlf8a1zQZVXq1bS6FD6 HrCU25yiktJO02CAZ0CnIDy1bp5dQezP1AwNQz4Jw9o2MDc7kT68r3L/isaSDcI4 5UzjaiZYjLDhagMQZHrjnLu4DnoBI1Z0=
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92DB36B0081 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so1544073vxg.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.175.199 with SMTP id cc7mr644895vdc.197.1305221670974; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.155.4 with HTTP; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DCC03FD.3070608@dcrocker.net>
References: <4DCAC1CB.3050905@qualcomm.com> <4DCC03FD.3070608@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:34:30 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTikU79k4iR+rSYXKsXKzhW1w-EKKbg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Applicability Statements
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, 12 May 2011 17:34:32 -0000

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> On 5/11/2011 10:05 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> AS is a failed experiment.  The failure was complete and not a matter of
> opinion.

Given that we never issue any anymore, I agree.  Heck, I was never
even aware of ASes as a document type.

Are there any RFCs that are ASes?  Why did AS fail?

> If you want to repeat it, you need to change the conditions, and explain how
> those changes are likely to make it succeed this time.

Sure, but a little more background as to why AS failed might help.

Right now I have no opinion on this subject.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email