Re: [apps-discuss] Experimental (was - Re: Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme)

Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Wed, 13 April 2016 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
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 1AE4112D7E8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 OmpoUvgNplMJ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB67D12D6C9 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3DMfEQA021090 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:41:15 -0700
References: <20160413200825.15190.qmail@ary.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <570ECB02.8060300@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:41:06 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160413200825.15190.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/nQhk3lPxgfqRfqdoZOjftjLr2Jc>
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Experimental (was - Re: Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:18 -0000

On 4/13/2016 1:08 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> So the idea behind Experimental -- and I see this as especially strong
>> /because/ there already is very wide use of the file: construct -- is to
>> publish the draft and see whether the community adopts use of it, to
>> cover that existing practise.
>
> I coulda sworn that's what Proposed Standard means.


Thought my text explained why not.

I'll try again:

    When a specification carries risk of affecting existing operations, 
there often is a requirement for it to demonstrate acceptable safety, 
prior to classing it as Proposed.

    Given that this specification relates to existing use of an 
extremely important construct -- and especially given how little 
community review it has received -- I'm suggesting invoking the safety path.

d/


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net