IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 09 June 2012 15:28 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 16A6D21F8849 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, 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 g5rFitQNDoFn for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A545E21F8841 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lagv3 with SMTP id v3so2800609lag.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:28:41 -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 :content-type; bh=BJ8H6F8itMkzF3cNRHIc3rpB5+oG8Mibk2Jhj7Tn9l8=; b=CohkUhprCuDsSjvkb5wtTfWPPdu6lO7yA3SHDnrM7ROzjqSiiaNhjlt2nsuZp6fALw auBZ2ZuzcDk21YC0uHyRRk0QMt9Zlipnllz/7HQGH17l1y0O6AIDplL40sMlidpkooxF 3/L39GbSjoNzUNbvmgXGjEXtunP/8xYzejD0P0LOgE4dYPKzH3Wm1KmXdoLKZ55k7r8M Bh8xaI2zDh3unVg7e6bFj3KXW9gGJ3o7uoUwo217FpHzZlfmo2ccr0Ejz3Ic9vtGX2lI mOUSU2HyMkiPOA+T2/ob8LX5Cc2VgvVwbEvQRWYLXQAIEFNp9BCH+Pgw+nJKDuPhGffs apmw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.104.47 with SMTP id gb15mr3220839lab.45.1339255721657; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.3 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVBReXuj473yvkNt3nOL6AyEPkZpyjqgsd2-fF5SiFs_aQ@mail.gmail.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>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:28:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbPw=8S+RN52QVTM=wf8f_242gp6O9coqNn6ZCoiNqq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d0421824d8d846304c20bc58c"
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: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 15:28:44 -0000

On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

> On Saturday, June 9, 2012, Ned Freed wrote:
> > As I said before, if the consensus is for FCFS, I'm willing to go along
> since
> > the number of this is likely to be small and so is the risk.
>
> And so I'd like to hear from more people about this.  The document said
> Specification Required, and we're talking about changing it to either
> Expert Review or First Come First Served.  You've seen the arguments on
> both sides so far, but we've only heard from me, Dave, and Ned.
>
> Will others give opinions, please?
>
>
>
Ultimately either of the two is fine with me.  However, I'm leaning towards
FCFS since I agree that the number of these being registered beyond the set
already listed in the document is likely to be very small, and the damage
done by a bogus registration is really quite minimal since this is trace
data unlikely to be parsed by machines.

-MSK

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