[hybi] hum #2: length vs sentinel based approach

Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> Thu, 05 August 2010 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.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 242733A6872 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.991
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.991 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.393, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 p0A0cqxGSvT6 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB113A6842 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b91ae000001aef-f1-4c5ae4d280e3
Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F7.E8.06895.2D4EA5C4; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:20:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.172]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:20:34 +0200
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:20:34 +0200
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1553024C9; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:20:34 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2BA34FC70; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:20:33 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from Salvatore-Loretos-MacBook-Pro.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134044FC48; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:20:32 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4C5AE4D0.5040805@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:20:32 +0200
From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060301080003080202030109"
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2010 16:20:34.0322 (UTC) FILETIME=[21A51720:01CB34BA]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: [hybi] hum #2: length vs sentinel based approach
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: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:20:06 -0000

based on slide #7 in http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/hybi-1.pdf

as Chairs we asked for a hum on if we should have both a length based 
and sentinel based approach;
and asked the following questions:

  (a) Should we have a single mechanism?
  (b) Should we have two separate mechanisms?

There was strong consensus in the room for the first.  It was the 
strongest sense in the Jabber room as well.

Based also on the mailing list discussion there is rough consensus a 
length based approach.

So unless people will raise good technical reasons against (during the 
next week):
we will declare consensus on

    * a single mechanism
    * length based

Joe Hildebrand and Salvatore Loreto
as chairs