IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis: PS or DS?

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Fri, 02 September 2011 23:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.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 42DD221F8DA1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 16:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.458
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.141, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 iu53fCaE74Rt for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 16:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F62E21F8D6C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 16:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O5L1MXYWU8012ARN@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 16:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O5L0EHBOKG00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 16:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01O5L1MUPLD200RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:31:04 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sat, 03 Sep 2011 00:34:27 +0200" <CAHhFybq=YWpaxpUVacZ-4UZASwJ_DFZrFqxAQHw_Fon+Tn2xeg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
References: <20110830041853.24036.37.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DFA7F@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAC4RtVBfyO4qDKEQp+0tsiN65oyUAvAdFs1-y5v3r1q7o+Ve4w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHhFybq=YWpaxpUVacZ-4UZASwJ_DFZrFqxAQHw_Fon+Tn2xeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1315006486; bh=TrFTImCzdZipjTr0AdY7gRP+zxMuaQV878M12eUKrCo=; h=Cc:Message-id:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:MIME-version: Content-type:References:To; b=CWhZ7X1QtLMZqR8YeVr6A3zIP76nblhPIwMPG81KV0NKFzpcNbF/Op5QtmD3mqsOg WkogTG/ahkaKsyfXRmhL0xSqQBx5Hq1gKqaIvigzD3kvAK/Cs49VWooFq0+JNmNml5 Jx+I70l1iGMrrm93SGeeyToPUx0BZ7amqCS75YOE=
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis: PS or DS?
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: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 23:34:13 -0000

> On 2 September 2011 22:36, Barry Leiba wrote:

> > The decision about the ultimate status of the document will be
> > made by the IESG, but input from the working group is important.

> The draft should be in a form allowing them to pick STD.  IMO the
> decision can be only PS (incompatible change) or STD (some minor
> resctriction removed).  What would be a plausible reason for DS ?

AFAICT the argument to move to full standard has not been made, and I for one
am a bit uncomfortable with removing a restriction during such a move.
Remember: draft is about interoperability, where a case can be made that this
change is harmless, full is about deployment, and that's harder to justify.

So I don't really support a move to full, and a recycle at proposed seems
unnecessary.  Ergo, recycle at draft.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email