IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com> Wed, 21 July 2010 07:55 UTC

Return-Path: <simone.bordet@gmail.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 B60383A6802 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 naLDYud6niV7 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5F03A63D3 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm1 with SMTP id 1so3668020fxm.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=UmSBX3ExbxgQRi32VUnwg8UOSzBQk2rNosig0ULNFqo=; b=fJB5FqvQ6F8wkXAU4xtXPYjzJ7B7iSP3/MU/LIiyZwRp9eU2EjQC1wKhWPi8wb6rhg z7iqaS2crHQ38aZQBm8aVv3ebtLWP1nMsgp7rU7294DvN41cYRVTU9ROcq8WeaSd61fw gZwPYh3ayeXhpIkCNHG6hQOgoKEcbAVzlX6s0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=sVbP7Oe0Ja27NNu5LwW8Me59m/O72FXAEcBTGOnuFCv1IQK4cwm0IzK2/wC0jrNZuO JmLA7GMPVcalmmdlk7g+foP2bbe9/Li2On6tVSLcLwhDzM2zkbKsQMPea5YLEQoh/22D tEycr++C3T5tzmBCzGHpKtRFpW1M8RvVx8gro=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.239.158.193 with SMTP id v1mr557140hbc.114.1279698966071; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.239.158.68 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimgeWEoLaZ8Fv6eLyi67-ZgC4caUF6C=ru8Ds1S@mail.gmail.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>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:56:05 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikvjjPcMECsg6iokJNlAlaWQEffpbvv_UHu7RWj@mail.gmail.com>
From: Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>
To: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 07:55:51 -0000

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 02:16, Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> wrote:
>> On 21 July 2010 09:22, Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com> wrote:
>>> Mike Belshe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>> +1
> yes, please. +1.

+1 as well.

Simon
-- 
http://bordet.blogspot.com
---
Finally, no matter how good the architecture and design are,
to deliver bug-free software with optimal performance and reliability,
the implementation technique must be flawless.   Victoria Livschitz

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email