IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] review of draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-12

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 05 March 2012 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 4417021E8049; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 14:23:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.776
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.776 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.177, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 SbIEgobQAmyo; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 14:23:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F58C21E803D; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 14:23:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squire.local (unknown [64.101.72.114]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA2F140058; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:34:53 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4F553CC2.8090801@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:22:58 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
References: <1DE839B2-11F0-4DBF-9C3A-4CB1073B91A9@gmx.net> <4F1DE84A.9000600@nostrum.com> <4F456465.6010509@stpeter.im> <4F461734.4050306@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4F5538AF.7010509@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F5538AF.7010509@nostrum.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ecrit@ietf.org, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu, mlinsner@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] review of draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-12
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: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 22:23:01 -0000

On 3/5/12 3:05 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> There's an aspect of this document that I want to make sure folks aren't
> missing.
> 
> The things lostsync1 are adding are not things that something that
> speaks lost will every say.
> 
> It's not an iteration of the lost vocabulary in that sense.
> 
> It is something spoken by things that talk about lost speakers.
> 
> This is not an extension of Lost. It is a different protocol that
> replicates the data used to
> answer Lost queries. It reuses the format that Lost uses when talking
> about that data.
> 
> Does that make a difference in whether a new namespace is appropriate?

My quick response is that I think it does make a difference, but I will
ponder it further and let you know if my thinking changes. :)

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email