Re: [apps-discuss] Request for Review - draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 03 February 2011 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D4483A69D1 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:31:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.761
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.761 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.285, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Fz6ebHTbSTx for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:31:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630703A69B3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:31:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MacBook-08.local (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p13GZ4OW061539 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:35:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Message-ID: <4D4AD937.8010906@vpnc.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:35:03 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <4D4A8420.9070908@gmail.com> <4D4ABE26.7010700@vpnc.org> <4D4AC14D.3040608@gmail.com> <4D4AC42A.7050303@vpnc.org> <4D4AD5C5.3000807@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D4AD5C5.3000807@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Request for Review - draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 03 Feb 2011 16:31:43 -0000

On 2/3/11 8:20 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 03.02.2011 17:05, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On 2/3/11 6:53 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>> 03.02.2011 16:39, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/11 2:32 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>> In accordance with RFC 4395 I'm asking to review the
>>>>> draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00, that can be found here:
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00
>>>>>
>>>>> This document specifies the 'rlogin' URI scheme. The Rlogin
>>>>> protocol is
>>>>> defined in RFC 1282.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your time,
>>>>> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. I've also posted such message on uri-review list. Mykyta
>>>>
>>>> This seems like another waste of time.
>>> I do not know why do you think so - Rlogin is quite widely-used
>>> alternative for Telnet on Unix systems.
>>
>> Mykyta: do you read the responses to your earlier drafts? If you do,
>> you would in fact know why I think so. It is the same reason as I and
>> others have said the same thing about most/all your other proposals.
>> If you don't read the responses, then I would very much encourage you
>> to stop posting to any IETF WG lists: they are supposed to be
>> discussions, not one-way announcements.
> If something appears for one proposal, it is not sure this will be said
> about the other one. My right - to propose; yours - to accept or decline.

Of course. But you said that you did not know why I thought this was a 
waste of time. If you had read earlier responses from me and many other 
members of the IETF community, you would have known that.