IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Tue, 12 June 2012 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.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 3FD1B21F84A7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 02:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 l6jhk548OhG7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 02:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8194921F8466 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 02:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail130-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.227) by CH1EHSOBE010.bigfish.com (10.43.70.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:36:51 +0000
Received: from mail130-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail130-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61EF43C026F; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:36:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.55.224.141; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:DB3PRD0702HT001.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -24
X-BigFish: PS-24(zz98dI9371I542M1432Izz1202hzz1033IL8275dhz2dh2a8h5a9h668h839hd24hf0ah304l)
Received: from mail130-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail130-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1339493809600223_3489; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:36:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CH1EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.242]) by mail130-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CBE4E0068; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:36:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB3PRD0702HT001.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.55.224.141) by CH1EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (10.43.70.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:36:49 +0000
Received: from AMSPRD0610HT001.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (157.56.248.85) by pod51017.outlook.com (10.3.4.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.15.74.2; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:37:42 +0000
Message-ID: <03a901cd487e$908c37c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
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>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:34:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: [157.56.248.85]
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
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: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:37:54 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 3:50 PM
> On Saturday, June 9, 2012, Ned Freed wrote:
> > As I said before, if the consensus is for FCFS, I'm willing to go
along
> since
> > the number of this is likely to be small and so is the risk.
>
> And so I'd like to hear from more people about this.  The document
said
> Specification Required, and we're talking about changing it to either
> Expert Review or First Come First Served.  You've seen the arguments
on
> both sides so far, but we've only heard from me, Dave, and Ned.
>
> Will others give opinions, please?

I am a fan of Expert Review.  It is a question of where the expertise is
likely to be should it be needed to get technical aspects of the request
into good shape; the originator of the request, IANA or the Expert.
Expert Review gives us another bite of the cherry, FCFS assumes that the
originator and IANA have all the necessary skills.

Tom Petch

> Barry

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