Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] IETF89 minutes

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:08:58 -0700

Colleagues,

The Secretariat has informed me that the audio archives for our meeting at
IETF 89 have been deleted with no chance of recovery.

My normal process is to take the minutes prepared by the minute taker (
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/minutes) and augment them with any
important details from the audio feed.  That won't be possible this time.

I plan to upload the minutes visible at the URI above as the official ones
for inclusion in the proceedings, but there's still a small time window
during which changes can be included.  If you have any to suggest, please
email [email-masked].

-MSK, APPSAWG co-chair

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy
<[email-masked]>wrote:

> They'll be posted this weekend.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 9:34 AM, t.petch <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> It would be good to see minutes from IETF89 before April 4th.
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>
>

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 14:13:43 -0500

On 3/28/14 12:16 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> The disparity between operational reality and architectural purity 
> leaves these decisions with a distinct Ivory Tower feeling.  We appear 
> to be telling email operators, the folks in the trenches, that they've 
> been doing it wrong all these years, they can't have what they want, 
> they need go back and do it right.

On this particular point: If a header field gets you what you want, 
that's great, and you should use it, and we should standardize it. 
However, if the header field has downsides, or doesn't fix the problem 
you think you're fixing, we should be honest about that in our 
documentation of it. If we're uninclined to document those downsides and 
misperceptions about what it might do, or they are pervasive enough that 
people will think they're getting something that they're not (cf. 
"DNT:"), we shouldn't call it a standard.

I am not in the least interested in architectural purity. MIME was never 
architecturally pure and I'm a big fan of it. All I want is for us to be 
clear and honest about what we do and don't get out of a mechanism that 
we intend to standardize and write it all down.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478