Subject: [apps-discuss] new gopher i-d

From: Nick Matavka <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:03:21 +0200

Just to let everyone know, I uploaded a new Gopher draft.  This one is in
standard format, so that people's eyes can have a rest.

Otherwise, this one carries barely any change from the original.  The next
version will be vastly overhauled.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 3 Jun 2015 20:47:09 -0000

>standard format, so that people's eyes can have a rest.

It would be helpful if you told us what the draft name is so we can find it.

R's,
John

---

From: Ira McDonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 16:50:55 -0400

Hi,

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-matavka-gopher-ii/

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: [email-masked]
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:47 PM, John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 20:29:03 -0700

> version will be vastly overhauled.

While you're developing the overhaul, I'll remind people that the issue
remains open for consideration for a little while longer about whether this
work is appropriate for handling someplace in the IETF stream, or via the
ISE.  Those of you who have weighed in already need not do so again, but
I'm interested in hearing from others.

-MSK

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 13:10:50 -0700 (PDT)

> I'm interested in hearing from others.

I'm largely in agreement with the note Lyndon Nerenberg posted at the beginning
of this discussion: Gopher played an important role, and for that reason alone
it's worthly of an informational RFC.

I'm largely indifferent to whether it's an ISE or IETF stream document. I will
also note that the recent DMARC specification was an ISE document but received
extensive review by an IETF WG, which shows running code for combining
the two approaches.

					Ned

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 16:45:56 -0400

> extensive review by an IETF WG, which shows running code for combining

+1 Good point. I was going to add such a similar note as well but.....

IMO, these days an informational RFC is leveraged as a means to fast 
track an RFC and also promote and market an idea as if it is the 
"industry standard."     IMO, too much of that is going on and DMARC 
and others fall in this category.  It has concerned me as it increases 
stress to participate (don't rock the boat), increases cost to explore 
and implement lower quality work.  I really don't care who does the 
work, but what concerns me the most is that poor quality work creates 
future compatibility problems.

But in this case with an existing technology, I think its important 
what the status we are looking for here. I think Gopher should be an 
Informational or BCP to summarize the technology as it is used today. 
In fact, I believe the IETF should review all the legacy 
communications technologies that help get each and every one of us 
here, including FTP and even RS232. People would be surprise to know 
how in a wide number of enterprise mission critical operations, RS232 
is still used to get around TCP/IP Encryption security requirements.

-- 
HLS

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Jun 2015 22:24:44 -0000

>it's worthly of an informational RFC.

RFC 1436 describes the Gopher protocol as I believe it was widely
implemented.  The I-D we've been talking about is a proposed Gopher II.

R's,
John

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 18:56:46 -0700 (PDT)

> implemented.  The I-D we've been talking about is a proposed Gopher II.

That's not how I read the abstract, which says:

   The Gopher protocol is over twenty years old.  Changing practices and
   unofficial extensions have caused Gopher as currently used to differ,
   but remain largely compatible with, the standard established in its
   official governing document, *The Internet Gopher Protocol (a
   distributed document search and retrieval protocol)*, known as *RFC
   1436*.  Therefore, this document attempts to establish a contemporary
   specification of the Gopher communications protocol, departing as
   little as possible from current practice.

Now, you may argue that any departure from existing practice is too much. And I
would disagree -  that's why I referred to the DMARC exercise, which I think
serves as running code as to how such a process might work and the possible
benefits that might accrue.

				Ned