IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

"Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com> Wed, 21 July 2010 00:37 UTC

Return-Path: <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B853A6A84 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.145
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.145 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.546, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 9lTX5GTVoLve for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from csmailgw2.commscope.com (csmailgw2.commscope.com [198.135.207.242]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF3263A69A3 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.86.20.102] ([10.86.20.102]:51598 "EHLO ACDCE7HC1.commscope.com") by csmailgw2.commscope.com with ESMTP id S334577Ab0GUAhb (ORCPT <rfc822; hybi@ietf.org>); Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:37:31 -0500
Received: from SISPE7HC1.commscope.com (10.97.4.12) by ACDCE7HC1.commscope.com (10.86.20.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.436.0; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:37:31 -0500
Received: from SISPE7MB1.commscope.com ([fe80::9d82:a492:85e3:a293]) by SISPE7HC1.commscope.com ([fe80::8a9:4724:f6bb:3cdf%10]) with mapi; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:37:29 +0800
From: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
To: Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:39:38 +0800
Thread-Topic: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?
Thread-Index: AcsobE4O4e5APmw+RgmZvmGcPtB4TAAAJddQ
Message-ID: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03EB773162@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
References: <h2w5c902b9e1004152345j992b815bz5f8d38f06a19181a@mail.gmail.com> <4BCAB2C1.2000404@webtide.com> <B9DC25B0-CD21-44E7-BD9B-06D0C9440933@apple.com> <4BCB7829.9010204@caucho.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004182349240.751@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCC0A07.9030003@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004190753510.23507@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCC111C.90707@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004190837570.23507@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCC204D.30004@gmx.de> <z2gad99d8ce1004190822ne4dd36b6v54d63efcc448e840@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007202204270.7242@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <AANLkTikkfdlUxQ0MGNvVQKa5gfovkGHWdCgyN9juKSQJ@mail.gmail.com> <4C462F9E.9030207@caucho.com> <AANLkTiksB5QNIPzET7fNV0JNyB2yOZ9qSuMOEa-aLjX-@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimgeWEoLaZ8Fv6eLyi67-ZgC4caUF6C=ru8Ds1S@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimgeWEoLaZ8Fv6eLyi67-ZgC4caUF6C=ru8Ds1S@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BCN: Meridius 1000 Version 3.4 on csmailgw2.commscope.com
X-BCN-Sender: Martin.Thomson@andrew.com
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:37:17 -0000

> For as adamantly as Ian states that it should be a requirement, I am just as adamant that it should not.
> Every protocol expert I've spoken with agrees that amateur protocol implementors should not be a requirement.
> Is there some way we can vote to either keep or nullify this requirement now and never come back to it again?  I'm tired of this obstacle holding everything up.

+1

That shouldn't mean that simplicity is not a design goal, just that it's not an overriding constraint.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email