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

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 07:59 12-06-2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
>  just started.  I found myself asserting that Expert Review will be 
> used as a quality control for 'goodness' rather than protection 
> against danger.  The latter is actually the claimed purpose of 
> Expert Review, not the former.
>
>This confusion is one of a number of reasons I think Expert Review 
>needs to be limited to situations in which wayward specs can do 
>systemic damage only.

I read Section 6.2 of -01.  Murray mentioned that the choice is 
between Expert Review and First Come, First Served.  The draft 
already populates the sub-registry with entries to cover various use 
cases.  FCFS would provide an easy registration path without having 
to argue about the quality of a specification.

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?

As a nit I suggest updating the dates and MTA version numbers in the examples.

Regards,
-sm