Re: [sieve] I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-external-lists-07.txt

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] wrote:

>>On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Cyrus Daboo <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Works for me.
>>>      
>>>
>>Great.  I'd like to hear assent from Alexey and Ned before I make the
>>changes.  If they agree, I'll put it in and submit an -08 version.
>>    
>>
>
>My main concern here is that the identifier be short and comprehensible, and
>this seems to qualify. I really don't care what punctuation surrounds it as
>long as it's simple, and this proposal works in that regard as well.
>  
>
I am Ok with it as well.

>And while I'm happy we can finesse this particular case by using some syntax
>and semantic tricks, I have to point out that some of the assertions made in
>reviewing the original URL scheme proposal were quite simply wrong,  and it's
>exactly the sort of mistake the IETF makes on a depressingly regular basis. 
>
>In particular, the original response to this registration stated that:
>
>  The use and deployment of new URI schemes in the Internet infrastructure is
>  costly
>
>This is of course true in the sense that widespread deployment in mutiple
>protocols and applications is costly. But that's not what we were trying to do
>and the assumption that this is what everyone who registers a URI scheme (or
>media type or charset or whatever) is doing is nonsensical.
>
+1.

>We were trying to define a mechanism for use in a single context in a single
>protocol. If other protocols decided the mechanism made sufficient sense to
>adopt, great, but if not that's fine too. Identifiers are cheap.
>
>So again, being able to finesse the issue here is good. But sooner or later
>we're going to have to face up to the fact that our, I guess I'd call it
>registration philosophy, is increasingly at odds with how protocols are
>actually defined and used.
>  
>
Agreed.

>  
>