IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 14 June 2012 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 C58BE21F84E6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, 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 erPlBXjZizvi for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from statler.isode.com (statler.isode.com [62.3.217.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C7221F8493 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1339706983; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=M10SsEYN79QfpU9IR4u9SAXkDJOVN8ELJ4TATGD13NI=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=ry0ZEvGFdpmXNADix856FlTm29UIcOI0Wm5Di4mhPBUtTnPYbGZW/Rfmvdu6BkuOtJIFP7 K7cCOANqnWHNIAJunZSA2e1LzA+OoLhiQtU6PXmMw2JP/6Sg8O/+aK5Biu0CQbTE43I8Yo cSrISAZbM6RrryFITEQmGFDbZ7RHavU=;
Received: from [188.29.2.53] (188.29.2.53.threembb.co.uk [188.29.2.53]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <T9pOZgBjLK3r@statler.isode.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:49:43 +0100
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> <03a901cd487e$908c37c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4FD75939.6060200@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120614075629.07eb21f0@resistor.net> <CAL0qLwa5KOyfg+mFH6WaS_-_6AO=3z7FkwQW-T1nebjwWhyxyw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwa5KOyfg+mFH6WaS_-_6AO=3z7FkwQW-T1nebjwWhyxyw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <5E3FB609-4FDA-45E1-B91C-86CFFA3F1C06@isode.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206)
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:49:35 +0100
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-3D36582D-40FA-4D6E-8AE5-D73BBD674162"
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:49:45 -0000

On 14 Jun 2012, at 19:00, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:14 AM, SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote:
> 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?
>  
> 
> Well now that's an interesting question.  Can we say something like "FCFS, except IANA should probably check with ADs when they receive requests for status changes"?  Has that been done before?

I think ADs would prefer for an Expert to deal with this. Really, they don't have to be experts in SMTP and they already busy as it is.

You can restrict the Expert to only be able to do a very small set of tasks (or be limited in why he/she can reject a registration)

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