IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 14 June 2012 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 E1E7821F8795 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.537
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, 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 Fkht+O1XhRI2 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3743421F8792 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5EJPGIA014593 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1339701920; i=@resistor.net; bh=KtEjqk6JuiP1UYKFgZEswXkmJWo/ZyMWluXGMRuSg08=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=iFkAqqqPtNB4GiS5BbtwJ/GmPRfx6uh8s4BQkUWGhCbmpdqPbW4mgWq6ohQQh8EgC zyjB0r/Xbpfx66l0k1yFHyj0Kscq9i4hUG3qsLjWfybC09rwIdBdXV67bD6hzMEOb3 5/IGm1lqlqSHu8al9lCPR0xX5SowATmDnAXZrShs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1339701920; i=@resistor.net; bh=KtEjqk6JuiP1UYKFgZEswXkmJWo/ZyMWluXGMRuSg08=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=SjVy8iaFODVvzlk+H/F4iD40KiUsWHcGME7L/7+fldeIfxQkUGxIPAvXOYCq+irZA sCAkZRXIspVt6KODufQtTPC5uRk+zTFXZMxlfev5ksLkfWWItB9lCl4aZBroWhg0oo JDetY1UdttVeQJcOP5aDaULG7h7Z7hweGheZtpuc=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120614120158.07f16808@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:24:50 -0700
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwanKa-+0EXZoJ74T=kgFAxRMCfVH-JKytK36QDae1bZbA@mail.g mail.com>
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> <CAL0qLwanKa-+0EXZoJ74T=kgFAxRMCfVH-JKytK36QDae1bZbA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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 19:25:22 -0000

Hi Murray,
At 11:39 14-06-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>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.

In an ideal world, yes. :-)

>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.

Expert Review may be easier then.  It can be aligned with the Message 
Header Fields registry.  I'd use deprecated instead of deprecated and 
historic.  The ietf-message-headers mailing list can be reused to 
process the requests.  I don't have a strong preference.

Regards,
-sm

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