IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] draft-saintandre-xdash-considered-harmful-01

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Mon, 25 October 2010 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@shinkuro.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C107C3A6957 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.154
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.445, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tnB6PubNH8Ou for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492D13A6AD7 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F1661ECB408 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 19:02:53 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:02:51 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20101025190249.GZ45134@shinkuro.com>
References: <201010212030.WAA26704@TR-Sys.de> <DFFD2700-C4DF-4256-BA20-03C45F5BAB54@standardstrack.com> <4CC4D9D3.2060003@att.com> <0077AC96FF0947F4AE87DFA7@PST.JCK.COM> <3F3180D3-2925-47E9-92FD-3ED11FAD6D34@standardstrack.com> <4CC5CF18.1070606@ninebynine.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4CC5CF18.1070606@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-saintandre-xdash-considered-harmful-01
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 19:01:20 -0000

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 07:40:24PM +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
> I keep wondering why RFC3864 [1] isn't more visible in this discussion:  
> provisional registration is cheap and easy.  Where's the problem here 
> that I'm not seeing?
>
> [[
>    The main requirements for a header field to be included in the
>    provisional repository are that it MUST have a citable specification,
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

People have come to think that getting an RFC actually published is
hard, probably because we have made it hard.  For people who aren't
used to the IETF, simply publishing something here is like being
nibbled to death by ducks.

Note that I-Ds aren't citable specifications, according to the process
rules.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email