IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] New appsawg documents

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Tue, 30 August 2011 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 376D021F8E1B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.738
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.739, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, 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 vl5-yXiKW2hz for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B16A21F8DFA for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:10:35 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:10:34 -0700
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] New appsawg documents
Thread-Index: AcxnP8SDTDsWXw4bSZyWO0fLwXt5/wAAA1Nw
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF999@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <CALaySJKw3zwR-Joxm8oBi8Y6b4E0zq5r5HbNGykDaotVTdGeXQ@mail.gmail.com> <004001cc6736$d4baab40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <004001cc6736$d4baab40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] New appsawg documents
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: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:09:14 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of t.petch
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:04 AM
> To: Barry Leiba; Apps Discuss
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] New appsawg documents
> 
> Why?
> 
> At least two of these seem to be progressing nicely without any
> adoption by appsawg, so adopting them seems to be a way of making
> work.
> 
> Do the authors want them adopted (I have seen no requests)?

As one of said authors, I do.  There are several reasons, not the least of which are the facts that our ADs are trying to keep AD-sponsored drafts to a minimum, incorporation into the WG is painless and reduces LC durations, and the documents (at least my two) are getting good support there.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status