Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01.txt

"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Wed, 28 September 2011 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.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 1EDBD21F893C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.362
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.362 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.238, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 PsQn88GcAa0p for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2beaomr09.btconnect.com [213.123.26.187]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 574F421F88B6 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from host86-163-147-122.range86-163.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([86.163.147.122]) by c2beaomr09.btconnect.com with SMTP id EOL72062; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:40:11 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <006a01cc7ddb$26470480$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
References: <20110922053351.2337.12758.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E805282.5050004@isode.com> <01O6I5IVA4F2014O5Z@mauve.mrochek.com> <4E80DA9E.6000101@isode.com> <013901cc7d01$214dfc20$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <01O6JWZO2QPQ014O5Z@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:30:54 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.4E8323BA.00E6, actions=tag
X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.9.28.125117:17:7.944, ip=86.163.147.122, rules=__HAS_MSGID, __OUTLOOK_MSGID_1, __SANE_MSGID, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __MULTIPLE_RCPTS_CC_X2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, CT_TP_8859_1, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_WWW, __URI_NO_PATH, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS, MULTIPLE_RCPTS
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr09.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0204.4E8323BD.0128, ss=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01.txt
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: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:37:40 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ned Freed" <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Cc: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>; "Ned Freed"
<ned.freed@mrochek.com>; <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:34 AM
> > ---- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
> > To: "Ned Freed" <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
> > Cc: <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 10:03 PM
> > > >> >
> > > >> The new version addresses my earlier concerns.
> > > >> One small new issue:
> > > >
> > > >> The newly added:
> > > >> 5. Registering New Report Types
> > > >
> > > >>     Registration of new media types for the purpose of creating a new
> > > >>     report format SHOULD note in the Intended Usage section of the
media
> > > >>     type registration that the type being registered is suitable for
use
> > > >>     as a report-type in the context of this specification.
> > > >
> > > >> What does "suitable for use as a report-type" means exactly?
> > > >
> > > > It means you're supposed to say something like:
> > > >
> > > >    This media type is suitable for use in report-type parts per
> > > > RFC3462bis.
> > > >
> > > > in the Intended Usage section of the type registration.
> > >
> > > Ok, maybe this is just me, but I don't think this is clear. Maybe say
> > > "suitable for use as the second body part of a multipart/report" instead?
>
> Seems like a reasonable change to me.
>
> > Surely it should say
>
> > "Registration of new media types for the purpose of creating a new
> > report format SHOULD note in the Intended Usage section of the media
> > type registration
> > **whether or not
> > the type being registered is suitable for use
> > as a report-type in the context of this specification."
>
> No, because a new report format is by definition suitable for use in
> this area. If it weren't it would not qualify as this sort of type.
>
> > As the text stands, it merely says that all new media types are suitable,
> > which seems rather pointless:-)
>
> That might apply if this document was discusingg media types in general, but
> it isn't. This is quite specifically about report formats, and this text
> is about the need to note that such formats identify themselves as such
> in their registration.

Ok, I see now, but did misunderstand, as I think Alexey did.

It does seem a bit circular, that you are saying that anything that is a new
report format SHOULD be suitable for use in the context of this
memo and SHOULD say so.

The bit I was missing was the first part, that a new report format is
automatically suitable for use; I was thinking of 'report format' as
having a looser, more generic meaning of which some would be
suitable and some would not.

Tom Petch
>
> Ned