Re: [apps-discuss] IETF technical plenary: the end of application protocols

Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com> Tue, 22 March 2011 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <leslie@thinkingcat.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 3D22528C12E for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 DvjBAcf-pBcu for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 930603A6783 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cashmere.local ([::ffff:173.71.208.218]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:10:35 -0400 id 00018048.4D89023B.00006CDE
Message-ID: <4D890230.4010308@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:10:24 -0400
From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <4D87612E.3090900@dcrocker.net> <4D881C04.2080406@qualcomm.com> <4D882781.8020605@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D882781.8020605@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] IETF technical plenary: the end of application protocols
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: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:09:09 -0000

+1 to this -- especially the points about the views being put forward 
being reasonable, but not all-encompassing.

Leslie.



Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> On 3/21/2011 8:48 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> I sent this to the IAB a few weeks ago. We haven't had much 
>> conversation (they
>> responded, but the firehose of stuff before the IETF meeting kept me from
>> replying until recently), but I thought you all would be amused.
> 
> 
> The degree of disconnect about architecture and protocol issues makes 
> this a bit challenging to view with humor.  (It's tempting to counter 
> that that's not really true since it is so easy to make fun of the 
> situation, but that's not what you meant and it's not what I'd find 
> productive...)
> 
> The larger issue I see is that the views being put forward for the talk 
> well might be reasonable, with sufficient qualifiers and very careful 
> language, but no qualifiers are being offered.  Instead the language 
> asserts universals, and these most certainly are not correct.
> 
> There could be a rather interesting discussion about these issues, given 
> a reasonable mix of people and a reasonable format for exploration and 
> debate. The current format is cast more for selling a specific view than 
> for understanding pros and cons and tradeoffs.
> 
> d/

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------