IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 14 June 2012 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 E628A21F8752 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.354
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 xR75PZ75AejN for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1529721F86E4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so2610393lbb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
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=PwzSO0dIEhMIFtU/MnnkVlLSHaxURq10eApX5EdRBKc=; b=PKIJFPkOhtBlC9VgA1rnooyEbV3GJjzgfCnHjAkS4XXACPliBzILuxxkV5xoVKHiU3 ZZAQal4npXHwpDEa3T/U+e+IUU//Y3EHL1oIQVGn1Yj1QgvpNzhmi9wuAUEHyX58WyQR J2AMop+CvDf8oLrnvOvDnvTijKfpQYUK84imc6I+XEkDwkt+spqEP/5XWp0sIULvgA4W EDq9AG7PCgylWmgzo3v+6x6kA1jMNUQunxwZVsYJj8QhMFVptWi1K1Lx+G/sRvStI49r FbxGTt0kKSmFOM+QV10DL+v0eA15uaa/Sfm5Gow2jikSPqAr3zu629jQnUfbK9Jk3cBr pmYg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.49.100 with SMTP id t4mr1454764lbn.10.1339699293101; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.3 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120614111103.09b6e3b8@resistor.net>
References: <CAL0qLwY1DCP9RY7cykwrPi48A_1h_FJUXo5eRWkn3Rw=rFXpBw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVBuET9h-QHEtS=genmJnJ6bfKk=KD0bTJQvZJApAsY_ww@mail.gmail.com> <4FD08CA3.6080504@dcrocker.net> <01OGEZDG0T8M000058@mauve.mrochek.com> <4FD29DF5.5010206@dcrocker.net> <CAC4RtVAbC64Bx67b6OD4LApy9p_K2xqAZYGAETHxXZE5gY0-oA@mail.gmail.com> <01OGGS87OI0Q000058@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAC4RtVBReXuj473yvkNt3nOL6AyEPkZpyjqgsd2-fF5SiFs_aQ@mail.gmail.com> <03a901cd487e$908c37c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4FD75939.6060200@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120614075629.07eb21f0@resistor.net> <CAL0qLwa5KOyfg+mFH6WaS_-_6AO=3z7FkwQW-T1nebjwWhyxyw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120614111103.09b6e3b8@resistor.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:41:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaiQN+F_-1QNugv-gGfrRqvVC0iOPaGDj_PRNri=9JmWQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec554d63c789dc304c2730c93"
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state
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, 14 Jun 2012 18:41:35 -0000

Hi SM,

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:29 AM, SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote:

>
> At 11:00 14-06-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
>> Well now that's an interesting question.  Can we say something like
>> "FCFS, except IANA should probably check with ADs when they receive
>> requests for status changes"?  Has that been done before?
>>
>
>
> I don't recall seeing that before.  There is an IESG override for IANA
> policies.  That could be invoked by the ADs to handle such requests.
>
> Instead of looking into how to reclassify, I suggest discussing what is
> considered as deprecated and what is considered as historic.  It can be
> used to assess whether the cost is worthwhile.
>
>
Even if we got rid of one of the two states, the question about moving from
"current" to the remaining one is unresolved.

Based on what you said, we could do "FCFS" and just encourage IANA to
interact with the IESG if they have any doubts at all about the request.

The simplest solution is to remove the "Status" column altogether, but I'd
prefer to keep it if we can find a way to work within our own IANA
procedures.

-MSK

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status