IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] On "supporting the publication of this document"

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Tue, 10 May 2011 22:35 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 9C8C1E08AB for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 15:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.323, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r+AjyPkRxC-V for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 15:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBE83E06D9 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2011 15:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Tue, 10 May 2011 15:35:49 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:35:47 -0700
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] On "supporting the publication of this document"
Thread-Index: AcwPVrbzRN+yH8xDQt6Bc0r8QpuI3AAC7YIQ
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134331A41A@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <4DC88255.3070403@qualcomm.com> <4DC94F74.30905@dcrocker.net> <4DC9A9B9.3010702@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4DC9A9B9.3010702@stpeter.im>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] On "supporting the publication of this document"
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: Tue, 10 May 2011 22:35:50 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 2:10 PM
> To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
> Cc: Pete Resnick; apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] On "supporting the publication of this document"
> 
> #    Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and
> #    send your feedback to the standards@xmpp.org discussion list:
> #
> #    1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP
> #       protocol stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
> #    2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the
> #       introduction and requirements?
> #    3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code?
> #       If not, why not?
> #    4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
> #    5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
> 
> Whether that's the right set of questions is another issue...

This, and especially that last one, makes it sound like a PROTO write-up.  Are you sure you want that from a potentially huge list of people?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email