[apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 15 January 2012 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B487521F8483 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:46:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 99EsPh+41a1A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:46:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23FF821F847C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:46:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (adsl-67-124-148-117.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net []) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0FJkDXO030481 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:46:18 -0800
Message-ID: <4F132D04.1020003@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:46:12 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <20120114235207.20340.qmail@joyce.lan> <61D306C70A44794D8930CCB6@PST.JCK.COM> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201142235000.1943@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201142235000.1943@joyce.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com []); Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:46:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:46:19 -0000


On 1/14/2012 7:55 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> It's certainly time for a trace field registry. And I suppose that if we
> have one, adding new trace fields isn't that big a deal.

It would help for folks to explain what the specific need for a "trace fields" 
registry is.  I'm not seeing it.

A registry is for the purpose of coordination.  It allows participants to know 
what exists, either for:

      a)  discovering to use the information, or

      b)  discovery to avoid conflicts in assigning new values

Registries incur a cost, so the associated benefit needs to be quite clear.

      1.  What coordination purpose will be served by the new registry?

We already have a registry to fields[1], so the 'trace' registry would be 
redundant with a subset of the that existing registry.  Redundancy is usually bad.

      2.  Why is redundancy acceptable, here?


[1]  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking