IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] On "supporting the publication of this document"

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 11 May 2011 01:15 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@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 B1B84E070C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 18:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Zq1a2baSEMpv for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 18:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39941E0708 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2011 18:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so13133gwb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2011 18:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rhuXYmrB2mSHN85mT5/5iALvvYpsZAFhWtEViHxCOYk=; b=vdvruWHFTez4LYj/KWsGxPWwwm86KoTqkOFWpWxHF2vAYXDHUqDFkuiODPheGiwouj QWMZosF3PmAnIDCRRaDJ1VMI4a/zGRuZgFT6BsuX08LnFuIVfRpx9VWu4nPRdqf8LrJx SXLn+UdBNjiu2YNyTm5b23zYXaGuyRU8AFDGQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=az1XnbXlPn6qa7zPtPcsaiyY1X1TGcZuxzTbkOAvzPsUM4T10FxEWz9IdBAvWFxf0O MeY6i5RJTCMzn5bgeHjOtySWewSzDJueLKMRsRAHg1+NXNyM4kz+5ZJvtycTGFnZLNO7 CzGQ03p05Ref6BGZlEefge4MtbXbQAVxdpJKQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.92.15 with SMTP id u15mr7062992ybl.220.1305076519471; Tue, 10 May 2011 18:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.147.137.13 with HTTP; Tue, 10 May 2011 18:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134331A41A@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <4DC88255.3070403@qualcomm.com> <4DC94F74.30905@dcrocker.net> <4DC9A9B9.3010702@stpeter.im> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134331A41A@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:15:19 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: KXJjWqMwyncJynPbBgBCp5a0jRc
Message-ID: <BANLkTinMTsipQ_bZXLitBKykF=d82VjgVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] On "supporting the publication of this document"
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: Wed, 11 May 2011 01:15:23 -0000

>> #    Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and
>> #    send your feedback to the standards@xmpp.org discussion list:
>> #
>> #    1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP
>> #       protocol stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
>> #    2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the
>> #       introduction and requirements?
>> #    3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code?
>> #       If not, why not?
>> #    4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
>> #    5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
>>
>> Whether that's the right set of questions is another issue...
>
> This, and especially that last one, makes it sound like a PROTO write-up.
> Are you sure you want that from a potentially huge list of people?

Interesting: I think the last question is the *most* important, and
the one that *least* seems like it came out of a PROTO write-up.  Yes,
that's the question I *do* most want to see *all* reviews answer.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email