IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00.txt]

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sun, 22 September 2013 08:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF09921F9F21 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 01:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.935, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s-ytjT5eoxot for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 01:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744BD21F9E00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 01:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.252.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C67350A73; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 04:06:03 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00.txt]
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <523E5F2D.9000206@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 18:06:00 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0566D004-A48D-4DFA-BA6A-E1E724173E5C@mnot.net>
References: <CE61D529.11007%Josh.Howlett@Ja.net> <523C2E7E.8070507@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <FF3F2C7C-5A75-4E2F-9D4B-31C78FDCD035@mnot.net> <523CF77A.2060700@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <66400EFC-C60C-49E1-B145-81B279FB4FC5@mnot.net> <523E5F2D.9000206@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 08:06:20 -0000

On 22/09/2013, at 1:08 PM, Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>>> Then, protocols not have any authoritative specification and
>>> should never be standardized and there should be no central
>>> authority to manage different versions of the protocols.
>> 
>> From a PRISM viewpoint, the cost of parsing different formats,
>> understanding different wire protocols, etc. is trivial.
> 
> That is a reasoning to deny the point of you:
> 
> : I draw the opposite conclusion, actually. With good standards,
> ; we can encourage a larger number of services to exist,
> : raising the cost of monitoring them all.
> 
> So, denying the point, you agree with me.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here, but I suspect we're not going to convince each other. That's OK with me.

Regards,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email