IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all)

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Mon, 20 February 2012 00:17 UTC

Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81BEA21F8597 for <weirds@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:17:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 8GDP12k0vlr2 for <weirds@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:17:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og115.obsmtp.com (exprod6og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C1621F8595 for <weirds@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:17:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob115.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT0GRMlgiM7OjL7U1CLyzD0Q3qntx0Ue/@postini.com; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:17:57 PST
Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q1K0Hpn5001641; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:17:54 -0500
Received: from dul1wnexcn04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.139]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:17:51 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXCAS02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.173.152.206]) by dul1wnexcn04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:17:51 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:17:50 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net" <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>, "weirds@ietf.org" <weirds@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all)
Thread-Index: AQHM7yIxztUlwsBOuUivL2KB8ZbxLZZE6vgQ
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:17:49 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D59F8C5@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <4F3D61E1.2000304@gmail.com> <20120216202927.22302.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120217121301.GA22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> <1FD638EC-CE65-40C5-AE89-C3C4AE200D11@hxr.us> <20120217175412.GD22951@nineve.blacknight.ie> <77B3700B-1BA9-4A39-B9B4-491DE96A8330@acm.org> <4F4120EA.9050203@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F4120EA.9050203@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2012 00:17:51.0022 (UTC) FILETIME=[1503FCE0:01CCEF65]
Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all)
X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" <weirds.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/weirds>, <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds>
List-Post: <mailto:weirds@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds>, <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:17:58 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 11:19 AM
> To: weirds@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all)

[snip]

> My view is that the gang of N (Scott, Jordyn, Ross, ... self) erred in
> 2002 in selecting XML syntax to specify the semantics of a replacement
> to the then prevalent provisioning protocol specified in key-value
> pairs. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-provreg-grrp-reqs-06,
> where we'd not yet taken the step of committing to a syntax for
> command payload.

Given the options available *at the time* I still think we made the right choice. With additional options available today it makes sense to consider alternatives.

Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email