IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 12 June 2012 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 1080F21F85A1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 JtQotmbuu159 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A7F21F86BE for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-55-201.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5CEx6iX022844 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:59:07 -0700
Message-ID: <4FD75939.6060200@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:59:05 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.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>
In-Reply-To: <03a901cd487e$908c37c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, 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
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:59:16 -0000

On 6/12/2012 2:34 AM, t.petch wrote:
> I am a fan of Expert Review.  It is a question of where the expertise is
> likely to be should it be needed to get technical aspects of the request
> into good shape; the originator of the request, IANA or the Expert.
> Expert Review gives us another bite of the cherry, FCFS assumes that the
> originator and IANA have all the necessary skills.


On a separate list, abut 5 minutes ago, there is a discussion about 
Expert Review that just started.  I found myself asserting that Expert 
Review will be used as a quality control for 'goodness' rather than 
protection against danger.  The latter is actually the claimed purpose 
of Expert Review, not the former.

This confusion is one of a number of reasons I think Expert Review needs 
to be limited to situations in which wayward specs can do systemic 
damage only.

The received-state spec is not one of those.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

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