Re: [apps-discuss] Experimental (was - Re: Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme)

What do you consider "the wire" for the purposes of the file:// URL scheme?

> On 14 Apr 2016, at 1:06 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 
> On 4/13/2016 7:55 PM, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
>>    This is why focusing on bits over the wire is better than talking
>>    about software implementation details.  If the 'different ways' mean
>>    different bits over the wire, then they are using different formats
>>    or different protocols.  And they won't interoperate.
>> 
>>    If they generate/parse the same bits and same semantics over the
>>    wire, this we don't care how the built the software to do it,
>>    because they /do/ interoperate.
>> 
>> 
>> The 'different ways' are actually different bits over the wire. Mostly
>> those are the bits that weren't part of the original spec, but were
>> widely deemed useful/necessary. I've tried to sidestep too much
>> controversy by continuing not to specify them, but I did write down some
>> of the ways some folk have decided to represent them.
> 
> 
> OK.  My advice:
> 
>     If there is a common core of bits over the wire that they all do do, but then some /additional/ bits over the wire that are different, then write the spec for the common parts and note (but do not document) that there are various independent extensions.
> 
>     Treat any effort to document the variations as completely separate from the common core.
> 
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> 
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/