IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> Wed, 21 July 2010 00:11 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@webtide.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 6A4D53A6991 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.584
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.392, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 3-zozyWxtccI for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:11:08 -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 6751B3A696D for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm1 with SMTP id 1so3545181fxm.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.122.195 with SMTP id m3mr6059095far.86.1279671083586; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.112.129 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C462F9E.9030207@caucho.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>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 10:11:23 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTiksB5QNIPzET7fNV0JNyB2yOZ9qSuMOEa-aLjX-@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
To: Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636c5b1425dd69a048bdaa4ac"
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 00:11:09 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email