Re: RFC 7168 on The Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol for Tea Efflux Appliances (HTCPCP-TEA)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 03 April 2014 00:29 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783321A0413 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id meilHQ_tJ94c for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22d.google.com (mail-pd0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132951A0028 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f173.google.com with SMTP id z10so937530pdj.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4f6+ZcXTjUQuBYVgNSXxA/qob7cSzxOdXxDG/9Yih4A=; b=vu5R1AwAyMhKsfi0mLY6ubF/Mq0D/VlKh0rbS+fY0XvVakjuQt1PPekSDIkFPq2nSn 0piUf56VyHnGThVVn/rmvDyDkww8aMAOqnTQIGZhAzxVqmryGKlRIUzAYD/q6gMOIr08 LX+QNTKXyPxwvCVAWCzZW4t/5u4tKGX++oI+lhIGF2G/fcj5wmkMKrAm9M5PRuQsopET QDKmcZUBQfx7RYwUm0sNrxUxdKW8ghc55NLg3a2g6sWITJbDRhTsrSBsEiGKmiXNDUsR vkrVrRWiHwJACDKApfTNhrzgd2vrM0AAnj97RRIRshAtnYmVatc3tN/n/MmGGYUpjL/B k4NA==
X-Received: by 10.68.193.100 with SMTP id hn4mr3661436pbc.50.1396484972228; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (89.195.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.195.89]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id xk3sm7076494pbb.65.2014.04.02.17.29.29 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <533CAB6F.5060108@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:29:35 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: RFC 7168 on The Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol for Tea Efflux Appliances (HTCPCP-TEA)
References: <20140401220040.F06667FC394@rfc-editor.org> <CADn-GthSGvG9SOtE7sfzsbtS0SyXHO6xOKXYZHgzDjYux+tYcQ@mail.gmail.com> <F11C2722-7821-4BBB-B6ED-6B8F20A978AB@nominum.com> <BC2AAC258726307E193F95F0@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <BC2AAC258726307E193F95F0@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3x6oAdLOtI_o38M-Tw8Z0hdXY-o
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 00:29:40 -0000

On 03/04/2014 13:01, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> --On Wednesday, April 02, 2014 19:42 -0400 Ted Lemon
> <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Clint Chaplin
>> <clint.chaplin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Will there be an option for not-tea?
>> No.   You can't have tea and not-tea.
> 
> At least until you answer the question "when is tea not tea" in
> a satisfactory way.  For example, the stuff that comes
> identified as tea but arrives in bags in many bad restaurants
> (and others that should know better), is pretty clearly not tea
> but it is less clear whether it is not-tea or not.

RFC 7169 describes a situation where TRUE and FALSE might mean the
same thing. I can't see, therefore, why tea and not-tea cannot
be simultaneously true (or false).

In the supermarket the other day, I was handed a free sample
of Red Bush Tea, which is clearly not tea. I do not know
whether it is not-tea.

   Brian