Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme

Matthew Kerwin <> Tue, 12 April 2016 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2FBA12DD79; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.149
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uYM56jmpmLB3; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD1E112DD5B; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g8so37227683igr.0; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=mPXzMhVk4N2VQXHHCAN+gTc+LWwYxHzM7zsmFHjKtWM=; b=XO6U0Zh3dYogG/qek0BH73yLSPbu6Wr9bPoE8Yp7JgWXMtTLK9IO8ayol2kyljlfxg SwJVUydCEADf5TsN+daK/BjRwKLtCXTR8iYtvt68Pf6YFqIKSkMPC4bsLyOOEDTU6EOF 8mAtVk/HJFOeVTVIOSododtsXpHvcp+GRPIVppHK5Ofbbu+mvDDc/082sdOiWzl39Uwr 4r3Djq3/lKP0zOTXAzKgyvKaNbZ1eHBWwl4erPde8anP18QZx+Nd9xrDb1Y46Lf3fVC4 7tlcHbHBjqpJ2UBDtfsRolip0FJ2UIiDkEAPYpOCh+0MgHJouB893PGLD5PdYFwhgPRc xZQA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=mPXzMhVk4N2VQXHHCAN+gTc+LWwYxHzM7zsmFHjKtWM=; b=ki9a+mwDnp3GpSDMocmJwRc58UdL7LlR6zlEERBrBG/0YRTvTcd+sMw14ZPAxnlhEi JSG2fNQeqih6UmCdNmNYhk+HKscxzglutO+0wkQv84w7ANhWLvouktjOZqc4VNuLConn tz31UxDdHQ8xW4SNTjGThykgijp+UC2eVNMPs7iXZojjbmKTIB2nQHDClSqSRlIO6x9U TGpJXejt18PoBVy3JfRR7K3XaR01KowuWSNd/aV4GQbZVs9GmCc+JbTIjdShJVde33xR xfEbapCIqdCcIKjMN2H1ypgevpnwCkh9/9nJkPp8bKsJL4KJCGE6B4aujE7pxyDtTs+U K2Dg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIIh+Jks6AgBzqfJtvxpsJTs6ZukpuW9L6LYmN4Ybn02bDV0XUypzlQ08binLqjD2zm5W+lEkwCo7Rb1w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id c3mr26588698igl.50.1460503959111; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:32:39 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: orHdnLuaDrb56oRszCu0bE4sSEY
Message-ID: <>
From: Matthew Kerwin <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011842e4ad11f6053052130d
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,, Dave Crocker <>, Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 23:32:41 -0000

On 13 April 2016 at 09:21, Murray S. Kucherawy <> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Dave Crocker <> wrote:
>> [...]
>> In technical terms, document seems to suffer some confusion about its
>> role as a format specification, versus as a protocol specification.  I
>> believe this issue is basic and important.  It needs to be resolved.
>> For a specification involving such a potentially and presumably important
>> capability, I think significant community support should be required...
>> unless the spec is to be offered as Experimental, which is the most I'm
>> inclined to recommend at this point...
> Thanks, Dave.  I've consulted with our ADs and they're fine with keeping
> APPSAWG open to process this document so long as we see continued work on
> its development.  If it goes stale again for too long, we'll likely shut
> down without completing this final milestone and pass the document over to
> DISPATCH for disposition under their handling model.  If we're sure we want
> Standards Track, that will mean sponsorship by an AD, or a (likely
> small/short) working group to finish it off.
> Matthew, do you have the time to put into closing this out?
> -MSK

Yes, I don't foresee any big obstacles in the coming weeks/month. I'm
working my way through Dave's feedback right now, in fact.

  Matthew Kerwin