Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wilde-accept-post-01.txt

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 09 September 2013 20:35 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <522E1D37.1030602@berkeley.edu>
References: <20130907014129.18614.59207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <522A8845.6060709@berkeley.edu> <CABkgnnV_9ErXuwd4LYy=LYaLuaQVrHtnWox-PH9h03Tz89x9uA@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbdMWgDO3ixQopv4SJovqW6XQ6Jy9Te4BRCbPSoKctxGHw@mail.gmail.com> <522E1D37.1030602@berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 13:34:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnU8tB=xXG=pRiXMVdJq+nSThqCkyiE4ROWvMupJpebAyg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org application-layer protocols" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wilde-accept-post-01.txt
Precedence: list

I was really just giving you a nudge.  The draft would be better, in
my opinion, if you answered this question in the draft itself.

On 9 September 2013 12:10, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> - there is precedent (Accept-Patch)

I never regard precedent as a good reason.  So: bad reason.

> - link hints currently follow the same method-specific model.

Same reason as the bad reason.

> - the "content model" is simpler than for a more general header field.

Good enough reason, in the absence of other reasons.  And I think that
James provided the other reason: there just isn't that much of a need
for this for other methods.

> we already have implementations using it

Not that convincing an argument honestly.

[apps-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Erik Wilde
Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification … Martin Thomson
Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification … James M Snell
Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification … Erik Wilde
Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification … Martin Thomson