IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 14 June 2012 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 066AA21F86BD for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.338
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 PHVCEcweRgQ5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C89621F86B9 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so2579975lbb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=0Co7NwqTAjW0ZLDI2CQ+OjxNfuaUySyrIBNvzfJMKTM=; b=No/HUv5dWCH6Hales+BQ3IAI6Yitt4sOLlrQSEn8Ebo/GFCHTr9o66rCaDOMbxtwx5 PKwEXDYA5eCTQKVboEHz7XjO1A+TBQNLpy7jIlElRFBGV5D9gHHX7qO2vOToQR4N5B3V v/lAZROQqyH/WPOe75IMWF0M9eJczzJZ/9hvoIG5btjsoV0NySdMBTg2SBplDv6PvvCW Kb1vIkSrSqSQG9Whr4sTWT5yG1Bhe0b4Nnviz3KRRyTO/ZBkcAdq6HlH0OfE1jQb9bBw vVQyjpISkj6CAmd6u8vpy0qgsQKY3aKctBmaolUtRHxC9zURDUfOVSHyPqa9FTGgM1yK gqhg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.147.33 with SMTP id th1mr2829239lab.9.1339696813273; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.3 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120614075629.07eb21f0@resistor.net>
References: <CAL0qLwY1DCP9RY7cykwrPi48A_1h_FJUXo5eRWkn3Rw=rFXpBw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVBuET9h-QHEtS=genmJnJ6bfKk=KD0bTJQvZJApAsY_ww@mail.gmail.com> <4FD08CA3.6080504@dcrocker.net> <01OGEZDG0T8M000058@mauve.mrochek.com> <4FD29DF5.5010206@dcrocker.net> <CAC4RtVAbC64Bx67b6OD4LApy9p_K2xqAZYGAETHxXZE5gY0-oA@mail.gmail.com> <01OGGS87OI0Q000058@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAC4RtVBReXuj473yvkNt3nOL6AyEPkZpyjqgsd2-fF5SiFs_aQ@mail.gmail.com> <03a901cd487e$908c37c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4FD75939.6060200@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120614075629.07eb21f0@resistor.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:00:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwa5KOyfg+mFH6WaS_-_6AO=3z7FkwQW-T1nebjwWhyxyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f22c411a9709604c272783d"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state
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: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:00:20 -0000

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:14 AM, SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote:

> In Section 6.2:
>
>  "Use:  One of "current" (the state keyword is in current use),
>      "deprecated" (the state keyword is in use but not recommended for
>      new implementations), or "historic" (the state keyword is no
>      longer in substantial current use).
>
> The draft does not mention anything about how "deprecated" or "historic"
> are to be handed.  If the WG decides for FCFS, for example, how will the
> "Use" be handled?
>
>

Well now that's an interesting question.  Can we say something like "FCFS,
except IANA should probably check with ADs when they receive requests for
status changes"?  Has that been done before?

-MSK

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status