IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-appswg-xdash-03

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 11 March 2012 03:40 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 18F0321F848C; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:40:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.805
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.805 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.206, 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 7tLrEScrbBzy; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:40:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913EB21F848B; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:40:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.7] (helo=PST.JCK.COM) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1S6ZZN-000Fdl-Fq; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 22:35:41 -0500
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 22:40:18 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Message-ID: <CEC409EF96AEFDC6394A7F96@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <4F5C1D10.8050305@qualcomm.com>
References: <62FF481C5AD21C3F683CD2B9@PST.JCK.COM> <4F5B9FF5.7040209@dcrocker.net> <4F5BA20D.30304@qualcomm.com> <B47E8B2B6E9CA7E84099E605@PST.JCK.COM> <4F5C1D10.8050305@qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash.all@tools.ietf.org, dcrocker@bbiw.net, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-appswg-xdash-03
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: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 03:40:34 -0000

--On Saturday, March 10, 2012 21:33 -0600 Pete Resnick
<presnick@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>> Sure.  Except that, while "experimental" or "private use" are
>> examples of "status", "extension" is a type.  And that, I
>> believe, takes us back to square one.
>>    
> 
> No, you've misunderstood my distinction, which means we
> haven't gotten the wording quite right. When I said "type", I
> meant "type of *content* being named". So, "+xml" is
> indicating a "type" of data or content. "Extension" is a
> status. It's how the *name* is being used, not what the
> *content* is.

I can buy that, but I don't think the terminology is clear.

    john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email