IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Pete and Barry: now it is up to you (was: draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00 and our lawn -- feedback?)

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Mon, 17 February 2014 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 650D71A0520 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:40:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pYrfUJSBwydE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:40:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-f172.google.com (mail-ve0-f172.google.com [209.85.128.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B7DB1A04F0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:40:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c14so12437230vea.17 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:40:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8X3pFqWEgReN+9PqGsjeaG1Ng8Jmk4k7J5u94lN3E60=; b=mI1qTzwbLYvYAsGENGIork6NxOVpAp5a7HUgFKmnJF0aTwQ5/LT7OGwuREpo9BDhCy vA2RpmcvvfKo6l9xfkxIzp6mPpF5kTFTB8MB83fSK9doqD393tQ4dHM8acmAwOc6uwJz kQxt2Sydv//fGneY4awFmaT9oI21rHoYc6JniV7gtkeLZ8Jf7F1wR1dprLafxU2rQqCg rJ39IL3e9foj1ESRNZL/2ofd1po6wuvduNJZCnlcTqH0zgdIYgNhrQ4Niq+nLI8H8QHR JXFXsi4MKuxGhykhZBiR0dNSeORGIVlVsS9KcvF+AUs/cqmB4nf3dpG3TRfnmF9kY2nk 9I1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm4U3tqEIzttbt7xmmeQAZRCiugL/ryrrMdT+wKgfTkgxDo/gNSUyajPFkbZh+YDn9d784X
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.188.41 with SMTP id fx9mr15031418vdc.19.1392662407297; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:40:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:40:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176]
In-Reply-To: <CAAQiQRcWGUzQraHY0OZb5KaOR_KT=Lo81u2PXVTKoF0qRvjFxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140216035539.2686.qmail@joyce.lan> <53009C37.3030009@ninebynine.org> <0DB8F884-5E50-4DA2-AD0B-C07EBB2C8F47@vpnc.org> <CAAQiQRcWGUzQraHY0OZb5KaOR_KT=Lo81u2PXVTKoF0qRvjFxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:40:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iucbiuwHrJXoJCE3efUKgvXz7My1hYZRoOQsicu35=m1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec5485ca014532804f29e7c64"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/lhiz0GNHUp_lrRf79wMBuD4LuRs
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Pete and Barry: now it is up to you (was: draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00 and our lawn -- feedback?)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 17 Feb 2014 18:40:12 -0000

Andy’s right, there are other ways out of the box. For example, to use an
HTTP header on their GET, or to use a POST rather than a GET with selector
information in the message body.  Or even better a PUT since it’s
idempotent.


On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
> wrote:
> > There is clearly a question of whether the WEIRDS WG will be allowed to
> use their current approach or be forced to change to templates. That
> question cannot be answered by more messages on this mailing list.
> >
>
> I think you have incorrectly framed the issue and resolution. The
> issue is if the WEIRDS WG is specifying a protocol with URI
> collisions. If they are, one of possible resolutions is to use URI
> templates.
>
> -andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email