Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-00.txt

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 12 January 2015 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634F41ACD2D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:33:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 bVtu1tPxPpsa for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:33:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x22a.google.com (mail-we0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EF7E1A802F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:33:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w61so20623056wes.1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:33:35 -0800 (PST)
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 :cc:content-type; bh=AxEgB0PrDE4h3v+UGD9ET6AVA/jfLViNHeh0LuTKv7k=; b=q8vMMGvHM1DfLQ5WpGn24OcDmgoKfFfaxfNh4izf8/6hwv0gqpo4rvRaRi8AAKdQjF on9KP5zjSZiD5+cgUq2TBfDilNvTtGe9ReodDJmYmtA5lIt3FpBBoJZ252TSRaYpnnB2 OvBhFMuWfTNGN9iaK95Gp/jzPaFZkeG+5q+wXbNLBGJQ1IHR+fOyuTbCtMcPKFUXxiPJ 0jiemK/AI4t542Uv95eP2YQpVKBlVKeLc8qF2djXXLkeXFvLQk8nsyhifgg1AKqijN9i kDp6noeJuTiLijNjlL6sxa0yLTwGS2WNMiGIT6yWUsOkUQ/oruLsoagD9LZaJkX1Uhtx 4BsQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.86.135 with SMTP id p7mr9439690wjz.89.1421087615375; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:33:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.204.198 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:33:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <036301d02e94$15a95200$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <20150112011216.17665.13268.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CACweHNBmr2eJO9p1QGuwR8jWS4RXNZtxQP1cxxF+1ZywqiH=Kg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZfaXuAzRj0FHot2V1LLdQR7nXFbd0BK-BFA86GHJmgKg@mail.gmail.com> <036301d02e94$15a95200$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:33:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZjweJ7zdLGee3sp7+rpBykQi_w5a_VLmXMBaL4o9Zpbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0102e498826b86050c78be10"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/jIW4XJDR4vVJvya4pMiSgQJeZok>
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-00.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:33:38 -0000

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:17 AM, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> Matthew
>
> Fascinating.
>
> My post earlier today was intended to prod whoever would declare
> consensus on adopting your I-D into declaring consensus.  I am not sure
> what has happened, I see no statement of adoption in my Inbox or in the
> IETF archives but no matter, as long as the powers that be agree on
> adoption, that is fine.
>
> My earlier note also speculated on the powers that be wanting a charter
> change, in which case I proposed
>
> 'I see the objective, were it to be codified as such, as updating the
> file: scheme from the level of RFC1738 to the level of RFC3986 and not
> attempting to go beyond that. '
>
> which remains what I will work toward.  Changes to RFC3986/RFC3987 I
> regard as out of scope, bordering on a DoS attack.
>

Apologies for the confusion, if any, which was likely my fault.  I should
have had the mini-charter drafted and sent out as part of the Call For
Adoption rather than doing it after the fact.  In the pre-holiday rush I
got the order of operations backwards.

We do still need to square that away before we can do any real work on the
content.

-MSK, slightly sheepish APPSAWG co-chair