IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] [alto] Review of draft-ietf-alto-protocol-11.txt

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Thu, 03 May 2012 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.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 5722B21F85A7; Thu, 3 May 2012 06:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -107.742
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 xP9AVZ40-ymG; Thu, 3 May 2012 06:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981AA21F848F; Thu, 3 May 2012 06:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.11]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q43DXTZA028702 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 3 May 2012 08:33:29 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q43DXRF3019614 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 3 May 2012 08:33:28 -0500
Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.235]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id q43DXQHC019257; Thu, 3 May 2012 08:33:27 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4FA28A5D.4050904@bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 08:38:37 -0500
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Alimi <rich@velvetsea.net>
References: <CA+9kkMB4nUayYO3q8ydj477jh9NM8oZyXAQ5k-NsRN=KHjb3cA@mail.gmail.com> <2DE7DDDA-6621-4E56-BD3D-1173833E672B@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <CA+9kkMApj1dPNn+0Uiz9iRPBhk3Px9kj-nP+Z+UGsjxoqY82eg@mail.gmail.com> <98BA299A-18E0-412C-A005-754F336E1620@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <CADOmCZXkF=Qc46x7+00KmB+y2q4Rm6xku2Q40YBQtsp4QeuqQQ@mail.gmail.com> <30166A91-3C02-48F7-8C3B-179DA770138C@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <4DC76AEC-2DCE-4DE4-B92C-C37F160DA7FF@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <CA+cvDaYUt+T2mpk5ijSvR3onyoeYPbjUnyZhXhUC_3J45QJQmw@mail.gmail.com> <A05467E6-0C38-40E3-B0C0-2207F05A882C@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <A05467E6-0C38-40E3-B0C0-2207F05A882C@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.11
Cc: draft-ietf-alto-protocol.all@tools.ietf.org, alto <alto@ietf.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, Richard Alimi <ralimi@google.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [alto] Review of draft-ietf-alto-protocol-11.txt
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, 03 May 2012 13:33:35 -0000

On 05/03/2012 01:59 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
>> This seems reasonable to me, except would it be appropriate to
>> have this kind of document dependency?  Would it be more
>> appropriate to just reference RFC2616?
>
> Up to you. HTTPBIS is in the process of putting the HTTPBIS specs
> through WG LC so there is light at the end of the tunnel for them
> popping out as RFCs. I referred to the HTTPBIS document because it's
> easier to find an appropriate reference but similar material is in
> 2616.

If the reference to HTTPBIS is informative, then we are not gated
by HTTPBIS reaching the terminal state of RFC assignment.

So the question to Rich A. would be whether he thinks that the
reference we put in fits better as Informative or Normative.
If the former, then we can move ahead without any delays.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email