Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 24 January 2012 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 093E321F861A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:03:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.048, 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 CGys5-cYfisA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:03:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D9721F8602 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:03:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.103] (50-0-66-4.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.0.66.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0ON3EsS017599 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:03:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F1F1A72.1090302@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:03:14 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FAD2FBBB-E679-4867-81E6-3F1C472BCF04@vpnc.org>
References: <4EE2430E.4080501@isode.com> <4F1F1A72.1090302@isode.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.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: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:03:18 -0000

On Jan 24, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> On 09/12/2011 17:19, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> However there weren't many comments on the document, so it is either perfect or people don't care.

That's somewhat disingenuous. Some of us care very much but didn't think that commenting on the document would have any effect on the outcome.

My comments: the document makes grandiose, over-arching suggestions that indicate a one-size-fits-all view of the standards process. I would probably do the same if I were co-author of this document, with half of my suggestions being the same as what is the draft and half being the opposite.

A different way to do the document would be a single paragraph: "People have thought about this topic for over a decade, probably much harder than you are thinking about this now. They often disagreed with each other, indicating that you are not thinking hard enough about your current choices. Whatever you choose to do with respect to not-yet-defined parameters, you will likely regret the choice if your protocol is at all popular." Such a concise document is much easier to read and much less likely to be noticed than the current one.

--Paul Hoffman