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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 14 April 2016 05:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.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 39C2912E49A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tO_uW75EmMxL for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8157612E4C3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [120.149.194.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52A7D22E1F3; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 01:35:19 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <570F0928.4020307@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:35:16 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <694AED88-B641-4FDD-B033-9C038879A062@mnot.net>
References: <20160413200825.15190.qmail@ary.lan> <14F6E2A0-8F9A-4855-9DA3-BBA383196790@mnot.net> <CACweHNCT+yTE7JoFQwrmaz4+WcAni4Xe=NV+KzhMu5w0g6tuRA@mail.gmail.com> <570F0057.3030409@dcrocker.net> <CACweHND_WLDocx0ozhGisCGw7dUeP4bzU3Fx1sxA=tzaZk+iZQ@mail.gmail.com> <570F0928.4020307@dcrocker.net>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/ghLgOvSrq0HUCwYgBanntQKl4KI>
Cc: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Experimental (was - Re: Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 14 Apr 2016 05:35:31 -0000

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/