From anthonybryan@gmail.com Tue Feb 1 00:37:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0253A6B9C for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 00:37:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.625 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.625 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jIhZuGYATf14 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 00:37:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F38713A6B58 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 00:37:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so3279775ewy.31 for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:40:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HXqfobgW7muZrPqo+6ELWOaeyaIa5UHhP+GRgby0bW8=; b=FC/git6lU0+Ixa5l81WmHgqsNFz99sORefKXIaVoBJrURXzPDQwQ6yXFN1lSB5sYiV E/5/Fs8TJyamYUa6wwJ6B8IER96m4hu/pVADqrLLKRTs6sE4FZjX47PCE0Xgp/gJ9UtL vg856fLlg9BjMS8Su/tcGJD4U/tKGnjKIO7BY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=SJ1+xJOPijz+TiiFhXZAflEfLw16Zp0Dq7mBd/Ic75LCDOXlNSIyKv8O79dd4zGrpQ 9tfR0GPynluUiYHf2XJf27B82KQczUbdAW8GgvORDz8KqwF64cgVoHsf4v+LY3UVPBFB 1wjgv1dfgKAjw6psQkRRcODcnGfxAQfushQiM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.32.199 with SMTP id e7mr9727369ebd.93.1296549641794; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:40:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.98.69 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 00:40:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D4762A1.3070708@it.aoyama.ac.jp> References: <4D471B36.4050503@isode.com> <4D4762A1.3070708@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 03:40:41 -0500 Message-ID: From: Anthony Bryan To: apps-discuss@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Fwd: NomCom 2010-2011: IESG Appointments] X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:37:27 -0000 On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:32 PM, "Martin J. D=FCrst" wrote: > On 2011/02/01 6:44, Claudio Allocchio wrote: >> >> thanks for all your important effort, Alexey, ... >> >> and of course "welcome Mr new Director", :-) Thanks Pete for your time >> in doing this! > > Same here, very much so, for both Alex and Pete! indeed, I don't even wanna know how much time & effort goes into it :) thank you for your service... --=20 (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ] =A0 )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads From evnikita2@gmail.com Tue Feb 1 02:12:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB033A6C39 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 02:12:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.208 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.390, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U+Kxwz1faQ8C for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 02:12:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A863A6BBA for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 02:12:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so7222101fxm.31 for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 02:15:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=689Muc6arhI4oGkrF2R+Ui2uuXdpQ10EPTzxfdmiJuU=; b=S5MSAREEL1FDtWWmwZuxCXZpiA+zv2gTx25UsMsyQClH9p4UiYU5bjjGtDaApLdnpV x92u4zUZl6Amj5kH7x0zTYIPUA3l6Ip8CEdZS6q+PFX8nHSzC0z/5DYhvbStuOdOpct0 3sEM00q23zQV+6EFgJyANgFF+R5dKkfj8pFrc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; b=bEJ0/2toGKMQjOmrBxlEae3H+agSvSGrqtBSIeX5f+rqIDkCyUqf0Gq00ZGQql1HZn T4UZd4zJMFMq6403ysfoIjVWBf5ydopUp8vuckVyrP4bhyybfOcg3GGRqy8NZMhqZZqt EzSRkI7ZvV+/A0ivXPmY3lFzWOxvjvmxC+kTE= Received: by 10.223.72.10 with SMTP id k10mr7254286faj.31.1296555317366; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 02:15:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e17sm7756753fak.34.2011.02.01.02.15.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 01 Feb 2011 02:15:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D47DD4A.7040503@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:15:38 +0200 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Hoffman References: %3C4D26B005.2060909@gmail.com%3E <4D2C7755.5080908@gmail.com> <81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com> <4D455380.6040103@gmail.com> <3792F8F3-D01B-4B05-9E73-59228F09FE5C@gbiv.com> <4D464EA4.7090303@gmail.com> <7ED44745-7DBA-4372-BE39-22061DC26DF2@gbiv.com> <4D46CE52.6030503@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: <4D46CE52.6030503@vpnc.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080402040107000700020406" Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:12:03 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080402040107000700020406 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 31.01.2011 16:59, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 1/31/11 12:28 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> No, there is no reason to have that document either. We don't need >> these useless exercises in bit pushing -- there are plenty of other >> drafts that need writing about actual protocols that were (and are) >> used on the Web as identifiers. afs, nfs, tn3270, and mailserver are >> all examples of schemes that someone once thought might be a good idea, >> but were in fact never used on the Internet. They are obsolete. > > +1 > > On 1/31/11 3:20 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > > Since these schemes are in Provisional category, it means that they are > > 'waiting for specification'. If no-one specifies them, they should be > > moved to Historical. That's clear, IMO. > > -1 > > Mykyta, you are approximately the only person who seems to have a > problem understanding that standards organizations like the IETF > sometimes don't follow through on what they thought were good ideas > and sometimes don't document that. Your response is to generate many > useless efforts to clean up the IETF specs instead of just doing what > everyone else does, which is to ask a question, find the answer, and > move on. It feels like you are wasting lots of people's time for the > benefit of no one other than maybe yourself. (If there are others who > feel that Mykyta's efforts are worth our time, by all means speak up > and I'm happy to back down here.) Paul, Roy, and all, What RFC 4395 says is that all URI schemes ever registered fall into three categories: Permanent, Provisional and Historical. There are no other cases the URI scheme may be classified as. RFC 1738, in its Section 4 mentioned the 'afs' URI scheme as reserved for further specifying. Following the creation of URI schemes registry the scheme was added to Provisional category, since it does not appear to appropriate for registration as Permanent or Historical. RFC 4395 sets clear criteria for all the categories. The 'afs' URI scheme may not be classified as Permanent, because of the lack of what mentioned in Section 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6 and 2.7 of RFC 4395. This scheme is not appropriate for Provisional because of the points described in Section 3 of this document, especially the cited below: > o If no permanent, citable specification for the URI scheme > definition is included, credible reasons for not providing it > should be given. > o A valid Security Considerations section, as required by Section 6 > of [3 ]. > o If the scheme definition does not meet the guidelines laid out in > Section 2 , the differences and reasons SHOULD be noted. > Therefore, there are no other possibility either to remain it as Provisional or re-register it as Permanent. Moreover, Section 4 mentions: > once in use or registered but for whatever reason is no longer in > common use and the 'afs' scheme meets these criteria. So the conclusion is obvious. As for the proposal to de-assign the scheme registration, the procedures for such action are not defined anywhere. All the best, Mykyta Yevstifeyev > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > --------------080402040107000700020406 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 31.01.2011 16:59, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On 1/31/11 12:28 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
No, there is no reason to have that document either.  We don't need
these useless exercises in bit pushing -- there are plenty of other
drafts that need writing about actual protocols that were (and are)
used on the Web as identifiers.  afs, nfs, tn3270, and mailserver are
all examples of schemes that someone once thought might be a good idea,
but were in fact never used on the Internet.  They are obsolete.

+1

On 1/31/11 3:20 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Since these schemes are in Provisional category, it means that they are
> 'waiting for specification'. If no-one specifies them, they should be
> moved to Historical. That's clear, IMO.

-1

Mykyta, you are approximately the only person who seems to have a problem understanding that standards organizations like the IETF sometimes don't follow through on what they thought were good ideas and sometimes don't document that. Your response is to generate many useless efforts to clean up the IETF specs instead of just doing what everyone else does, which is to ask a question, find the answer, and move on. It feels like you are wasting lots of people's time for the benefit of no one other than maybe yourself. (If there are others who feel that Mykyta's efforts are worth our time, by all means speak up and I'm happy to back down here.)
Paul, Roy, and all,

What RFC 4395 says is that all URI schemes ever registered fall into three categories: Permanent, Provisional and Historical.  There are no other cases the URI scheme may be classified as.

RFC 1738, in its Section 4 mentioned the 'afs' URI scheme as reserved for further specifying.  Following the creation of URI schemes registry the scheme was added to Provisional category, since it does not appear to appropriate for registration as Permanent or Historical.

RFC 4395 sets clear criteria for all the categories.  The 'afs' URI scheme may not be classified as Permanent, because of the lack of what mentioned in Section 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6 and 2.7 of RFC 4395.  This scheme is not appropriate for Provisional because of the points described in Section 3 of this document, especially the cited below:

  o  If no permanent, citable specification for the URI scheme
      definition is included, credible reasons for not providing it
      should be given.
   o  A valid Security Considerations section, as required by Section 6
      of [3].
   o  If the scheme definition does not meet the guidelines laid out in
      Section 2, the differences and reasons SHOULD be noted.
Therefore, there are no other possibility either to remain it as Provisional or re-register it as Permanent.  Moreover, Section 4 mentions:

once in use or registered but for whatever reason is no longer in
   common use
and the 'afs' scheme meets these criteria.  So the conclusion is obvious.

As for the proposal to de-assign the scheme registration, the procedures for such action are not defined anywhere.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss


--------------080402040107000700020406-- From evnikita2@gmail.com Tue Feb 1 02:14:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6163A6C3C for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 02:14:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.565 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.258, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m3rfv-ok0ztK for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 02:14:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799B43A6C39 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 02:14:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so7224212fxm.31 for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 02:17:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=KmGg7kWgvz2FC0KNLlJDVXwJuECgyAmwqaUtn6DQEt8=; b=wjgnlyndvymSVbEwQ+7B3ovTFt5g1/WstnIsaTK/Kr8a10MlUrzINyIAwYyJPh1o0P Q4cZljwqpKgbxPoJfGm6ibpBKwjdBF1562ofmX1mafUqws7nC2cAvWXTY3cRzVTtGWed rh3J7GweTrcIBqxIbWTQfXDQXMpFcjVPJitxk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=nMLMAVi0Baobs+A9qskCsn1N0TEpvZbAHqMmEUfBCapX9EcMY3p6+KhUG+2X6kFN+F r1I5qiIc9PXukeXWqTnWEGbWDakhyqmGajKikH33r/iPxlSaiMKx2YO8nyez+O3odhWS MIIbK647oAGHmpCpmbrCAuLmSPmcqckh6Rsd8= Received: by 10.223.70.142 with SMTP id d14mr2015115faj.110.1296555450463; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 02:17:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e17sm7755873fak.10.2011.02.01.02.17.29 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 01 Feb 2011 02:17:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D47DDD0.7050707@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:17:52 +0200 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4D471B36.4050503@isode.com> <4D4762A1.3070708@it.aoyama.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: <4D4762A1.3070708@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Apps-Discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Fwd: NomCom 2010-2011: IESG Appointments] X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:14:15 -0000 01.02.2011 3:32, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > On 2011/02/01 6:44, Claudio Allocchio wrote: >> >> thanks for all your important effort, Alexey, ... >> >> and of course "welcome Mr new Director", :-) Thanks Pete for your time >> in doing this! > > Same here, very much so, for both Alex and Pete! Alexey, Peter! Thank you for everything! It was nice to work with you. Mykyta > > Regards, Martin. > From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Tue Feb 1 03:20:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40583A6914 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 03:20:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.535 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CvyjuP+0eWLU for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 03:20:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B7D43A6CC6 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 03:20:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from host1.cachelogic.com ([212.44.43.80] helo=dhcp-113-devlan.cachelogic.com) by mail11.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PkEKs-0003Q6-Gk; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:23:50 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <4D47DD4A.7040503@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:23:49 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <06BA884E-D1C7-4783-BBE6-A6B21DE013B7@niven-jenkins.co.uk> References: %3C4D26B005.2060909@gmail.com%3E <4D2C7755.5080908@gmail.com> <81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com> <4D455380.6040103@gmail.com> <3792F8F3-D01B-4B05-9E73-59228F09FE5C@gbiv.com> <4D464EA4.7090303@gmail.com> <7ED44745-7DBA-4372-BE39-22061DC26DF2@gbiv.com> <4D46CE52.6030503@vpnc.org> <4D47DD4A.7040503@gmail.com> To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: Paul Hoffman , apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:20:35 -0000 Mykyta, On 1 Feb 2011, at 10:15, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > 31.01.2011 16:59, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On 1/31/11 12:28 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:=20 >>> No, there is no reason to have that document either. We don't need=20= >>> these useless exercises in bit pushing -- there are plenty of other=20= >>> drafts that need writing about actual protocols that were (and are)=20= >>> used on the Web as identifiers. afs, nfs, tn3270, and mailserver = are=20 >>> all examples of schemes that someone once thought might be a good = idea,=20 >>> but were in fact never used on the Internet. They are obsolete.=20 >>=20 >> +1=20 >>=20 >> On 1/31/11 3:20 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:=20 >> > Since these schemes are in Provisional category, it means that they = are=20 >> > 'waiting for specification'. If no-one specifies them, they should = be=20 >> > moved to Historical. That's clear, IMO.=20 >>=20 >> -1=20 >>=20 >> Mykyta, you are approximately the only person who seems to have a = problem understanding that standards organizations like the IETF = sometimes don't follow through on what they thought were good ideas and = sometimes don't document that. Your response is to generate many useless = efforts to clean up the IETF specs instead of just doing what everyone = else does, which is to ask a question, find the answer, and move on. It = feels like you are wasting lots of people's time for the benefit of no = one other than maybe yourself. (If there are others who feel that = Mykyta's efforts are worth our time, by all means speak up and I'm happy = to back down here.)=20 > Paul, Roy, and all, >=20 > What RFC 4395 says is that all URI schemes ever registered fall into = three categories: Permanent, Provisional and Historical. There are no = other cases the URI scheme may be classified as. >=20 > RFC 1738, in its Section 4 mentioned the 'afs' URI scheme as reserved = for further specifying. Following the creation of URI schemes registry = the scheme was added to Provisional category, since it does not appear = to appropriate for registration as Permanent or Historical. >=20 > RFC 4395 sets clear criteria for all the categories. The 'afs' URI = scheme may not be classified as Permanent, because of the lack of what = mentioned in Section 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6 and 2.7 of RFC 4395. This = scheme is not appropriate for Provisional because of the points = described in Section 3 of this document, especially the cited below: >=20 I think the exact category these schemes are recorded under is not the = key issue here. These schemes were registered because it was believed they would be used = but no-one has actually used them. What is the real value and benefit in doing all the work to move them to = historic? No one uses them so no one benefits from tweaking the category = they are placed in IMO. One could argue that it is good housekeeping etc. but given the effort = to write a draft, have it reviewed and taken through the IESG to become = an RFC that no-one will read (because no-one uses the scheme in the = first place) just doesn't seem a good use of the community's time and = resources IMO. Ben From lars.eggert@nokia.com Tue Feb 1 04:11:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C498B3A6B77 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 04:11:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.242 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.242 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.643, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uAi8abW077Bs for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 04:11:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE433A690F for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 04:11:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (esdhcp030222.research.nokia.com [172.21.30.222]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p11CF7og028972 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:15:08 +0200 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.5 at fit.nokia.com Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-53-427715660; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 From: Lars Eggert In-Reply-To: <06BA884E-D1C7-4783-BBE6-A6B21DE013B7@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:14:55 +0200 Message-Id: <860CE561-0966-450A-85C0-42C78D2A2DDD@nokia.com> References: %3C4D26B005.2060909@gmail.com%3E <4D2C7755.5080908@gmail.com> <81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com> <4D455380.6040103@gmail.com> <3792F8F3-D01B-4B05-9E73-59228F09FE5C@gbiv.com> <4D464EA4.7090303@gmail.com> <7ED44745-7DBA-4372-BE39-22061DC26DF2@gbiv.com> <4D46CE52.6030503@vpnc.org> <4D47DD4A.7040503@gmail.com> <06BA884E-D1C7-4783-BBE6-A6B21DE013B7@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: Ben Niven-Jenkins X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (mail.fit.nokia.com); Tue, 01 Feb 2011 14:15:00 +0200 (EET) X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: Paul Hoffman , apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:11:56 -0000 --Apple-Mail-53-427715660 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 2011-2-1, at 13:23, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > What is the real value and benefit in doing all the work to move them = to historic? No one uses them so no one benefits from tweaking the = category they are placed in IMO. >=20 > One could argue that it is good housekeeping etc. but given the effort = to write a draft, have it reviewed and taken through the IESG to become = an RFC that no-one will read (because no-one uses the scheme in the = first place) just doesn't seem a good use of the community's time and = resources IMO. +1 Lars= --Apple-Mail-53-427715660 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMRjCCBVAw ggQ4oAMCAQICEGxdPUZzCwUJ8KBiJwH+bYgwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMDEwMTUwMDAwMDBaFw0x MTEwMTUyMzU5NTlaMIIBEzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2 aWNlMRQwEgYDVQQDFAtMYXJzIEVnZ2VydDEkMCIGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYVbGFycy5lZ2dlcnRAbm9r aWEuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAwolKEyOz/NQZJJlw0x9XBS9W wCmabdY1fXpbWSdcaJiEWhQpRzSIC/pgIwCgaUW9g3JsWioXCawyjUVeg8xR42sR690f4z+OPAUm 3jokZxsuRaGX6fuPkPQomYAGz7htUHws/8FZIU+4dciETQf4vF5ptitJ+QZCVRCTLqisj6mG/kG4 65Op3G5/YZF9F/a390LdhuRP6vdY2Y+dqm8LDa0zmENPpoE98u1pIZGqCcnskN/nNBtEPd+a4lNh ZSGnPuL4XCUSJYR9NB7FAYBvi5N7LSWHR3fspwa5EgpXynJcsLzaLA0iGfjFOBYFxul/07edmyw4 FIXuCIkaMDUfEwIDAQABo4HSMIHPMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgtghkgBhvhFAQcX ATAqMCgGCCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIF oDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwUAYDVR0fBEkwRzBFoEOgQYY/aHR0cDov L2luZGMxZGlnaXRhbGlkLWczLWNybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vSW5kQzFEaWdpdGFsSUQtRzMuY3Js MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQAlSTzUKqa3ZouKWFQfIJ+4l/KsztPnY4Onwzt8lqAmeiFPqOmf kLTXbXDKtC6caFadNtyHpnsmQFFKXwhe5Z9/AaVSwryu6F9992DzYLp3j8PE0DSU0wmpUXUtp+rz TFqJRkzB8RCBoq/TPBmkMPr68qB0TkU3dbYiVIvscOt1MRkdHiwG4wKQLyCf8XRRWqmMY6lbun7g kiEWiris5StGKRvE5+e1SrcdnoZxIKQFF7Etr+4ftClrsDQWX9nRCEjYcmz4y/deq+HU8ylBaKZE 0ZJmcnYlAaD50OYWi0ckGDnKYyeMUEtCZJSV0otm2LqyIUAu9WPv/GNHt2ntjnUaMIIG7jCCBdag AwIBAgIQcRVmBUrkkSFN6bxE+azT3DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCByjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAV BgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTow OAYDVQQLEzEoYykgMTk5OSBWZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLiAtIEZvciBhdXRob3JpemVkIHVzZSBvbmx5 MUUwQwYDVQQDEzxWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24g QXV0aG9yaXR5IC0gRzMwHhcNMDkwNTAxMDAwMDAwWhcNMTkwNDMwMjM1OTU5WjCB3TELMAkGA1UE BhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBO ZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29t L3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJp U2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA7cRH3yooHXwGa7vXITLJbBOP6bGNQU4099oL42r6ZYggCxET6Zvg SU6Lb9UB0F8NR5GKWkx0Pj/GkQm7TDSejW6hglFi92l2WJYHr54UGAdPWr2f0jGyVBlzRmoZQhHs EnMhjfXcMM3l2VYKMcU2bSkUl70t2olHGYjYSwQ967Y8Zx50ABMN0Ibak2f4MwOuGjxraXj2wCyO 4YM/d/mZ//6fUlrCtIcK2GypR8FUKWVDPkrAlh/Brfd3r2yxBF6+wbaULZeQLSfSux7pg2qE9sSy riMGZSalJ1grByK0b6ZiSBp38tVQJ5op05b7KPW6JHZi44xZ6/tu1ULEvkHH9QIDAQABo4ICuTCC ArUwNAYIKwYBBQUHAQEEKDAmMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20w EgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADBwBgNVHSAEaTBnMGUGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMFYwKAYIKwYBBQUH AgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jcHMwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgIwHhocaHR0cHM6Ly93 d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYTA0BgNVHR8ELTArMCmgJ6AlhiNodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWdu LmNvbS9wY2ExLWczLmNybDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwbgYIKwYBBQUHAQwEYjBgoV6gXDBaMFgw VhYJaW1hZ2UvZ2lmMCEwHzAHBgUrDgMCGgQUS2u5KJYGDLvQUjibKaxLB4shBRgwJhYkaHR0cDov L2xvZ28udmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3ZzbG9nbzEuZ2lmMC4GA1UdEQQnMCWkIzAhMR8wHQYDVQQDExZQ cml2YXRlTGFiZWw0LTIwNDgtMTE4MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR5R2EIQf04BKJL57XM9UP2SSsR+DCB8QYD VR0jBIHpMIHmoYHQpIHNMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4x HzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5IFZlcmlT aWduLCBJbmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgUHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHM4IRAItbdVaE VIULAM+vOEjOsaQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADlNz0GZgbWpBbVSOOk5hIls5DSoWufYbAlM JBq6WaSHO3Mh8ZOBz79oY1pn/jWFK6HDXaNKwjoZ3TDWzE3v8dKBl8pUWkO/N4t6jhmND0OojPKv YLMVirOVnDzgnrMnmKQ1chfl/Cpdh9OKDcLRRSr4wPSsKpM61a4ScAjr+zvid+zoK2Q1ds262uDR yxTWcVibvtU+fbbZ6CTFJGZMXZEfdrMXPn8NxiGJL7M3uKH/XLJtSd5lUkL7DojS7Uodv0vj+Mxy +kgOZY5JyNb4mZg7t5Q+MXEGh/psWVMu198r7V9jAKwV7QO4VRaMxmgD5yKocwuxvKDaUljdCg5/ wYIxggSLMIIEhwIBATCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMu MR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2Ug YXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBO b3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2Ny aWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBsXT1GcwsFCfCgYicB/m2IMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJtMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJ AzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTExMDIwMTEyMTQ1NVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkE MRYEFNR78EPn2fdcGX8ra33gd8ezNnymMIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQG EwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5l dHdvcmsxOzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20v cnBhIChjKTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlT aWduIENsYXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEGxdPUZzCwUJ8KBiJwH+ bYgwggEFBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlT aWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJt cyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMV UGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1 YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBsXT1GcwsFCfCgYicB/m2IMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIB AKhaXEkiQjdQ+98ACDq+yr323GsR/XdHdGRShXWX+oOYIZp8MXUkxLeVpOfB5Vm2RfdGtVpmp9Bk wlcRhJUEHREY0WI8YYq7rwJ9bWmBkEVYmi6qh3Xb7EyW3SQL7g6bIOLd2sM32ib/PfPfrUL8RGkT MZBOn+g+5/rDYUMDrv4IeyA1fIvYwJ0lcuh8WwqpEfCHFf/S7snuopCOuKrLHEz3nyZ9355jwlIB Qlki+Yz2PaUmR1lm2YKwWyrSpIvYSsy+jyx9/UHL2Mb8hZ6856VH+mtvoCTaS1xsYIksK5uYoQI0 V5eOFjcmMYG6WczrOAHCCOjSKB/vo7ohxneTvV4AAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail-53-427715660-- From evnikita2@gmail.com Tue Feb 1 06:58:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616EB3A6D4D; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 06:58:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.214 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.214 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.385, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sRwLp7IJAb3C; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 06:58:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D331C3A6D41; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 06:58:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so7530258fxm.31 for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:01:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MoMJH70NgATLtCfY1B/FG2GUh4BK7q+Ro2H0iVi+8Ig=; b=sOousM1zGV5KnBXylEtFyIEBZQt4PVBQycasa2zHzX3drIJuJdRmXk2xe6Gmroe0F+ Y6tdAytkMkAtE8mjh6ugDLvF1bJEUeCiwjPnSoXKQ2NIsaZlM1wPh4Y5gn/MftcnrlCV V7zVmj/2XvDNaXD9R/uXfWh0lzEY65PSNTPr0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Urv2EyUzBFAQt/xdC6KaoTO/NLC9IHBQom5nUubhj62yunoVdApmlIh1BTdMMjdSPK mDtL9GmXaJuELy7OdE0HyQiDlifI+EXiJL2xIDy3l0khogbm+teHZw610KeJqQn7NxWK /riqKSRKaSOevpLtSx2OpGPLj+ugwIO1ZIt8I= Received: by 10.223.87.80 with SMTP id v16mr7549848fal.128.1296572508421; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:01:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n26sm7891935fam.13.2011.02.01.07.01.46 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:01:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D482071.8050202@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:02:09 +0200 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Niven-Jenkins References: %3C4D26B005.2060909@gmail.com%3E <4D2C7755.5080908@gmail.com> <81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com> <4D455380.6040103@gmail.com> <3792F8F3-D01B-4B05-9E73-59228F09FE5C@gbiv.com> <4D464EA4.7090303@gmail.com> <7ED44745-7DBA-4372-BE39-22061DC26DF2@gbiv.com> <4D46CE52.6030503@vpnc.org> <4D47DD4A.7040503@gmail.com> <06BA884E-D1C7-4783-BBE6-A6B21DE013B7@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <06BA884E-D1C7-4783-BBE6-A6B21DE013B7@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" , URI , Paul Hoffman , apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 14:58:33 -0000 01.02.2011 13:23, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > Mykyta, > > On 1 Feb 2011, at 10:15, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > >> 31.01.2011 16:59, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> On 1/31/11 12:28 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>>> No, there is no reason to have that document either. We don't need >>>> these useless exercises in bit pushing -- there are plenty of other >>>> drafts that need writing about actual protocols that were (and are) >>>> used on the Web as identifiers. afs, nfs, tn3270, and mailserver are >>>> all examples of schemes that someone once thought might be a good idea, >>>> but were in fact never used on the Internet. They are obsolete. >>> +1 >>> >>> On 1/31/11 3:20 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >>>> Since these schemes are in Provisional category, it means that they are >>>> 'waiting for specification'. If no-one specifies them, they should be >>>> moved to Historical. That's clear, IMO. >>> -1 >>> >>> Mykyta, you are approximately the only person who seems to have a problem understanding that standards organizations like the IETF sometimes don't follow through on what they thought were good ideas and sometimes don't document that. Your response is to generate many useless efforts to clean up the IETF specs instead of just doing what everyone else does, which is to ask a question, find the answer, and move on. It feels like you are wasting lots of people's time for the benefit of no one other than maybe yourself. (If there are others who feel that Mykyta's efforts are worth our time, by all means speak up and I'm happy to back down here.) >> Paul, Roy, and all, >> >> What RFC 4395 says is that all URI schemes ever registered fall into three categories: Permanent, Provisional and Historical. There are no other cases the URI scheme may be classified as. >> >> RFC 1738, in its Section 4 mentioned the 'afs' URI scheme as reserved for further specifying. Following the creation of URI schemes registry the scheme was added to Provisional category, since it does not appear to appropriate for registration as Permanent or Historical. >> >> RFC 4395 sets clear criteria for all the categories. The 'afs' URI scheme may not be classified as Permanent, because of the lack of what mentioned in Section 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6 and 2.7 of RFC 4395. This scheme is not appropriate for Provisional because of the points described in Section 3 of this document, especially the cited below: >> > I think the exact category these schemes are recorded under is not the key issue here. > > These schemes were registered because it was believed they would be used but no-one has actually used them. > > What is the real value and benefit in doing all the work to move them to historic? No one uses them so no one benefits from tweaking the category they are placed in IMO. > > One could argue that it is good housekeeping etc. but given the effort to write a draft, have it reviewed and taken through the IESG to become an RFC that no-one will read (because no-one uses the scheme in the first place) just doesn't seem a good use of the community's time and resources IMO. Ben, Such action might be performed by simple request of IESG. RFC 4395 says: Transition from 'provisional' to 'historical' may be requested by anyone authorized to update the provisional registration. Since that is not clear who is authorized to change it, IESG should be considered for such action (there is not this in the document, this is my opinion). So IMO IESG should issue the community call on reclassification and then request this action from IANA. And in this way there won't be what you say - unnecessary docs. All the best, Mykyta Yevstifeyev > Ben > > > From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Tue Feb 1 07:20:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BAF43A6C05 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:20:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.538 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e5tPZwePs6TP for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:20:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44ED63A6DE0 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:20:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from host1.cachelogic.com ([212.44.43.80] helo=dhcp-113-devlan.cachelogic.com) by mail10.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PkI4e-0007LJ-3f; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:23:20 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <4D482071.8050202@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:23:19 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: %3C4D26B005.2060909@gmail.com%3E <4D2C7755.5080908@gmail.com> <81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com> <4D455380.6040103@gmail.com> <3792F8F3-D01B-4B05-9E73-59228F09FE5C@gbiv.com> <4D464EA4.7090303@gmail.com> <7ED44745-7DBA-4372-BE39-22061DC26DF2@gbiv.com> <4D46CE52.6030503@vpnc.org> <4D47DD4A.7040503@gmail.com> <06BA884E-D1C7-4783-BBE6-A6B21DE013B7@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <4D482071.8050202@gmail.com> To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:20:08 -0000 Mykyta, On 1 Feb 2011, at 15:02, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > Ben, >=20 > Such action might be performed by simple request of IESG. RFC 4395 = says: >=20 > Transition from 'provisional' to 'historical' may be > requested by anyone authorized to update the provisional > registration. >=20 >=20 > Since that is not clear who is authorized to change it, IESG should be = considered for such action (there is not this in the document, this is = my opinion). So IMO IESG should issue the community call on = reclassification and then request this action from IANA. >=20 > And in this way there won't be what you say - unnecessary docs. So you've saved an I-D being written but still used IESG time which = could be much better spent on other things that actually provide value = to the community. Also, you failed to answer the question I asked though, namely: >> What is the real value and benefit in doing all the work to move them = to historic? No one uses them so no one benefits from tweaking the = category they are placed in IMO. Unless there is a good answer to that question to justify changing their = classification, I don't see any point in spending time discussing how = one might go about reclassifying them. Ben From evnikita2@gmail.com Tue Feb 1 07:24:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030413A6C27; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:24:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.217 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.382, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hi-BYlim5CIl; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:24:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B403A6C05; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:24:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so3486037ewy.31 for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:27:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dcKy7DdL56/jeJBEkmdssju6dPMqBazQwnCghhbE1JQ=; b=ptYbNVfPLOtgU9GTlYCJmUdNejWkHdB+Yz+0wyfNo7OyIC+wUpAse4/0WXOVjaT1+g xRhDFdVYViPPQSM5z1I9aDa2YBce3wGUfGKgxz0MXZHBG39JRW4guoSsYNiOMhB25D4c Qt5FhLJnI1mOkkciBm09rrGhOQDtFv2BZn6F4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xn0oXBsloP4vkdhECN8fFhm3s69C5EASdvXuuPguArZ0Kf4MW2e0fi4gQI/qBAozhC 4Q8l1dydMX3NHEWz2hY6P1IBGM/AcbTjh6mZsTluWLNZsJjsYxwLlulHIKJsbb3kL/cQ MXj00CFM+EGA+vQZOcNAKypPX37hE42edVJkU= Received: by 10.103.240.20 with SMTP id s20mr3068347mur.37.1296574053174; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:27:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a6sm1245303fak.1.2011.02.01.07.27.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:27:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D48267A.1030800@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:27:54 +0200 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Niven-Jenkins References: %3C4D26B005.2060909@gmail.com%3E <4D2C7755.5080908@gmail.com> <81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com> <4D455380.6040103@gmail.com> <3792F8F3-D01B-4B05-9E73-59228F09FE5C@gbiv.com> <4D464EA4.7090303@gmail.com> <7ED44745-7DBA-4372-BE39-22061DC26DF2@gbiv.com> <4D46CE52.6030503@vpnc.org> <4D47DD4A.7040503@gmail.com> <06BA884E-D1C7-4783-BBE6-A6B21DE013B7@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <4D482071.8050202@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" , URI , apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:24:18 -0000 01.02.2011 17:23, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > Mykyta, > > On 1 Feb 2011, at 15:02, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >> Ben, >> >> Such action might be performed by simple request of IESG. RFC 4395 says: >> >> Transition from 'provisional' to 'historical' may be >> requested by anyone authorized to update the provisional >> registration. >> >> >> Since that is not clear who is authorized to change it, IESG should be considered for such action (there is not this in the document, this is my opinion). So IMO IESG should issue the community call on reclassification and then request this action from IANA. >> >> And in this way there won't be what you say - unnecessary docs. > So you've saved an I-D being written but still used IESG time which could be much better spent on other things that actually provide value to the community. I really do not consider the action I propose as that 'requires great amount of time'. Moreover, there is a strong consensus it is not used and will not be used so no problems will appear, IMO. > Also, you failed to answer the question I asked though, namely: >>> What is the real value and benefit in doing all the work to move them to historic? No one uses them so no one benefits from tweaking the category they are placed in IMO. > Unless there is a good answer to that question to justify changing their classification, I don't see any point in spending time discussing how one might go about reclassifying them. You should better ask the authors of RFC 4395 this, but not me. If this wasn't needed, it wouldn't appear here. Mykyta Yevstifeyev > Ben > > From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Tue Feb 1 07:37:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40523A6CDC; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:37:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.858 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.858 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tQczLLu1Durc; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:37:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D7C3A6C11; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:37:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by iyi42 with SMTP id 42so6681495iyi.31 for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:40:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=C2DddsRHDx5GL3bxpVUW/XHXkQF0vM5dwZdLIwF94tQ=; b=KGbZpIr8lH/pkyXyxM13kS04/Z2DMx1bPt4/Ko/HO9UVTWFumjQHlyth4jrYzyzsOr IZHzdUaRX3HdpMfjsV8QgwuO5+AHMW4ew+x7I+f57QTXClAqoIq8z1hoYs4MX4VCqAsQ JQD/QrYRlaCJpdd20BDaqqwRA+xaFy3WtNevM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=jBIpwf0ERW+NROTZDP2I7XmWznAW2NHqsaf6Kwi1iHa4NjLWk3IJsz3ElbUjCGnQ/S QtO7uj2SOHcO6Z3U1SsQ0Aw129GTbEe6IPcpXrPfGBK0XOmJ9CEzno885OoXLu+y2MJ2 JgFUlP4019KoU4JIIiufi8sm4Ra/NIHhoOLA8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.172.198 with SMTP id o6mr8070078icz.132.1296574859706; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:40:59 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.42.228.74 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:40:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D48267A.1030800@gmail.com> References: <4D2C7755.5080908@gmail.com> <81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com> <4D455380.6040103@gmail.com> <3792F8F3-D01B-4B05-9E73-59228F09FE5C@gbiv.com> <4D464EA4.7090303@gmail.com> <7ED44745-7DBA-4372-BE39-22061DC26DF2@gbiv.com> <4D46CE52.6030503@vpnc.org> <4D47DD4A.7040503@gmail.com> <06BA884E-D1C7-4783-BBE6-A6B21DE013B7@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <4D482071.8050202@gmail.com> <4D48267A.1030800@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:40:59 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: BOMtKxO2qyoM8L52o90wW53idsk Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" , URI , apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:37:47 -0000 On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev w= rote: >> So you've saved an I-D being written but still used IESG time which coul= d >> be much better spent on other things that actually provide value to the >> community. > > I really do not consider the action I propose as that 'requires great amo= unt > of time'. =A0Moreover, there is a strong consensus it is not used and wil= l not > be used so no problems will appear, IMO. It could be done as an IESG management item. So... An AD has to request it by putting it on a telechat agenda. The IESG secretary has to track it. The IESG has to discuss it on the telechat (and the scribe has to transcribe the discussion). The secretary has to put it in the minutes, and the IESG has to review the minutes. IANA has to make the change, and ensure that they do it right, which probably means double-checking with the AD, who will review the IANA action. A notice has to be sent out. No, that's not a *huge* amount of work. But it *is* work and time, spent by volunteers who are already working nights and weekends to get their volunteer jobs done in addition to what their employers are paying them for. I don't know how the government works in Ukraine, but here in the U.S. our Congress often comes out with silly "resolutions". A few years ago, they voted on and passed a resolution stating that Christmas is important, for example. Someone has to draft the resolution, it has to be read at the meeting, someone has to speak in support of it -- sometimes multiple someones -- and a vote has to be taken. Of course, it passes. But it accomplishes nothing, and it's wasted everyone's time. This is like that. Let's not waste everyone's time. In fact, let's not waste any more time discussing it. (I'll point out, Mykyta, that you do not appear to have rough consensus to do this, and there seems to be strong consensus NOT to. Please accept that; it's how the IETF works.) Barry From ietfc@btconnect.com Tue Feb 1 07:37:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768C33A6B58; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:37:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.386 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.386 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.213, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bl7RkKPT9kQ8; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:37:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2bthomr09.btconnect.com [213.123.20.127]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6313A6CF4; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:37:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from host217-44-202-151.range217-44.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([217.44.202.151]) by c2bthomr09.btconnect.com with SMTP id BPC96881; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:41:06 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <01b301cbc21d$868081c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: "t.petch" To: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev" , "Ben Niven-Jenkins" References: %3C4D26B005.2060909@gmail.com%3E <4D2C7755.5080908@gmail.com> <81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com> <4D455380.6040103@gmail.com> <3792F8F3-D01B-4B05-9E73-59228F09FE5C@gbiv.com> <4D464EA4.7090303@gmail.com> <7ED44745-7DBA-4372-BE39-22061DC26DF2@gbiv.com><4D46CE52.6030503@vpnc.org> <4D47DD4A.7040503@gmail.com><06BA884E-D1C7-4783-BBE6-A6B21DE013B7@niven-jenkins.co.uk><4D482071.8050202@gmail.com> <4D48267A.1030800@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:37:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4D482991.018E, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr09.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.4D482992.0237,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=single engine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Cc: uri-review@ietf.org, URI , apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:37:53 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev" To: "Ben Niven-Jenkins" Cc: ; "URI" ; Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 4:27 PM > 01.02.2011 17:23, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > > Mykyta, > > > > On 1 Feb 2011, at 15:02, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > >> Ben, > >> > >> Such action might be performed by simple request of IESG. RFC 4395 says: > >> > >> Transition from 'provisional' to 'historical' may be > >> requested by anyone authorized to update the provisional > >> registration. > >> >> Since that is not clear who is authorized to change it, IESG should be considered for such action (there is not this in the document, this is my opinion). So IMO IESG should issue the community call on reclassification and then request this action from IANA. > >> > >> And in this way there won't be what you say - unnecessary docs. > > So you've saved an I-D being written but still used IESG time which could be much better spent on other things that actually provide value to the community. > I really do not consider the action I propose as that 'requires great > amount of time'. Moreover, there is a strong consensus it is not used > and will not be used so no problems will appear, IMO. I have said it before, and I will go on saying it. The time of an AD is precious, we depend on them for the IETF to happen, so creating unnecessary work for them, by requests, by unproductive I-Ds or any means is detrimental to the whole of the IETF. Doing that to the IESG simply magnifies the effect by an order of magnitude. Tom Petch > > Also, you failed to answer the question I asked though, namely: > >>> What is the real value and benefit in doing all the work to move them to historic? No one uses them so no one benefits from tweaking the category they are placed in IMO. > > Unless there is a good answer to that question to justify changing their classification, I don't see any point in spending time discussing how one might go about reclassifying them. > You should better ask the authors of RFC 4395 this, but not me. If this > wasn't needed, it wouldn't appear here. > > Mykyta Yevstifeyev > > Ben From ietfc@btconnect.com Tue Feb 1 07:43:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CCE53A6CF1 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:43:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.41 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.189, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UL-6Kv2WB2Nv for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:43:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2bthomr09.btconnect.com [213.123.20.127]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 532503A6C1D for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:43:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from host217-44-202-151.range217-44.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([217.44.202.151]) by c2bthomr09.btconnect.com with SMTP id BPD05300; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:46:56 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <020a01cbc21e$57245f40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: "t.petch" To: "Paul Hoffman" , References: %3C4D26B005.2060909@gmail.com%3E<4D2C7755.5080908@gmail.com> <81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com> <4D455380.6040103@gmail.com> <3792F8F3-D01B-4B05-9E73-59228F09FE5C@gbiv.com> <4D464EA4.7090303@gmail.com><7ED44745-7DBA-4372-BE39-22061DC26DF2@gbiv.com> <4D46CE52.6030503@vpnc.org> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:42:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.4D482AE3.00BC, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr09.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0204.4D482AF3.0084,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=single engine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:43:45 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Hoffman" To: Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 3:59 PM > On 1/31/11 12:28 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > No, there is no reason to have that document either. We don't need > > these useless exercises in bit pushing -- there are plenty of other > > drafts that need writing about actual protocols that were (and are) > > used on the Web as identifiers. afs, nfs, tn3270, and mailserver are > > all examples of schemes that someone once thought might be a good idea, > > but were in fact never used on the Internet. They are obsolete. > > +1 > > On 1/31/11 3:20 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > > Since these schemes are in Provisional category, it means that they are > > 'waiting for specification'. If no-one specifies them, they should be > > moved to Historical. That's clear, IMO. > > -1 > > Mykyta, you are approximately the only person who seems to have a > problem understanding that standards organizations like the IETF > sometimes don't follow through on what they thought were good ideas and > sometimes don't document that. Your response is to generate many useless > efforts to clean up the IETF specs instead of just doing what everyone > else does, which is to ask a question, find the answer, and move on. It > feels like you are wasting lots of people's time for the benefit of no > one other than maybe yourself. (If there are others who feel that > Mykyta's efforts are worth our time, by all means speak up and I'm happy > to back down here.) No, looks spot on to me, so keep on doing whatever the opposite of backing down is. Tom Petch. From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Tue Feb 1 07:47:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3DC3A6E0F for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:47:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I7vZsVjPUm3y for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:47:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 182183A6E86 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:46:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from host1.cachelogic.com ([212.44.43.80] helo=dhcp-113-devlan.cachelogic.com) by mail11.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PkIUO-0006Yd-Bu; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:49:56 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <4D48267A.1030800@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:49:54 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <96CC61EE-81BD-43CB-A83F-78E67B2DA7A5@niven-jenkins.co.uk> References: %3C4D26B005.2060909@gmail.com%3E <4D2C7755.5080908@gmail.com> <81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com> <4D455380.6040103@gmail.com> <3792F8F3-D01B-4B05-9E73-59228F09FE5C@gbiv.com> <4D464EA4.7090303@gmail.com> <7ED44745-7DBA-4372-BE39-22061DC26DF2@gbiv.com> <4D46CE52.6030503@vpnc.org> <4D47DD4A.7040503@gmail.com> <06BA884E-D1C7-4783-BBE6-A6B21DE013B7@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <4D482071.8050202@gmail.com> <4D48267A.1030800@gmail.com> To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:47:17 -0000 Mykyta, This will be my last mail on this topic as I've spent too long on it = already. On 1 Feb 2011, at 15:27, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > 01.02.2011 17:23, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: >>=20 >> So you've saved an I-D being written but still used IESG time which = could be much better spent on other things that actually provide value = to the community. > I really do not consider the action I propose as that 'requires great = amount of time'. Moreover, there is a strong consensus it is not used = and will not be used so no problems will appear, IMO. Let me be more explicit. IMO spending any amount of time >0 on this is = pointless. =20 >> Also, you failed to answer the question I asked though, namely: >>>> What is the real value and benefit in doing all the work to move = them to historic? No one uses them so no one benefits from tweaking the = category they are placed in IMO. >> Unless there is a good answer to that question to justify changing = their classification, I don't see any point in spending time discussing = how one might go about reclassifying them. > You should better ask the authors of RFC 4395 this, but not me. If = this wasn't needed, it wouldn't appear here. RFC4395 states "Any scheme that is no longer in common use MAY be = designated as historical". You're the one pushing for that optional = action to be taken, not the authors of RFC4395 so you're the one that = should justify why it is worthwhile taking that action. Ben From johnl@iecc.com Tue Feb 1 07:50:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B888A3A6E50 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:50:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.084 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.084 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DZYl1htNziWM for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:50:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011533A6E47 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:50:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 39502 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2011 15:53:45 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2011 15:53:45 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=14440.4d482c89.k1102; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=SM+m2NSZIRY8fuQvGrrMSSRMh866dkB16wNWAXmz2cI=; b=CSQF9ovhxvvz2fVokv/xhphkBo8U7sihB4rViTeWwv+KBiKIYuwHgRlMbOQ551IMFlBRIOBkKrff/f4OfoYrtLp9rz2NDOebEO4JBPfGbfOQhS1PEyf0YFcsodkTSVRAYZsjkqJLdcpxwQkoIo+XIjp9buUvuZVuxl6tXBURGXk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=14440.4d482c89.k1102; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=SM+m2NSZIRY8fuQvGrrMSSRMh866dkB16wNWAXmz2cI=; b=gG7/JkpY392VUaakt1xoGxtVT/i1gHf8/0iNE011EDyuAP8UNrKsBvz1OhcfEytJYEliayrA88XREgDmSVf9EKO28C3bIcFYyH3eUhlHwjPG2BguvtByimXGlNb8664y0JhvFRTc/W8I/kuF1u+B/IyEFsUKptgJm40A1he6amo= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 1 Feb 2011 15:53:45 -0000 Message-ID: <20110201155345.83007.qmail@joyce.lan> From: John Levine To: apps-discuss@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: barryleiba@computer.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:50:30 -0000 >This is like that. Let's not waste everyone's time. >In fact, let's not waste any more time discussing it. I certainly see rough consensus (everyone except one) that there is nothing to do here. So I encourage people to resist the urge to debate it further. R's, John From evnikita2@gmail.com Tue Feb 1 08:03:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83953A6D00; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:03:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.219 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.380, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WRqkHoaCdewV; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:03:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03173A6C3D; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:03:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so7593766fxm.31 for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:06:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=aKwzXhUlB5ZzaTIGRrSy/Fo4rNnoAul23Kmk7TW7fr0=; b=mwZXCfnZ3uqw38sTUkNPXqJidDDO9FGcKqgLaqBnD0nK8nUMpNprMvdy+Ly7WA3lcU ZxkTl5pECxvnNUKPjqn0AcY+azLLegr97pUREVAxBvlI9Z4RH5ZUa/Crix03I197e7gB Ic0RWlYPOh8FNe+uVzr1p6qw5W0h//1pUF6ss= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Ay/v2zQ+LzpPHiSPTk0HEcLG4zymUjCTSq6N/O5sAAXLSXkwzD5GEWUm6LXxpv6ifg AgcXVzfeft/jHh8dQcow31o2mt0b8X4pgPA+WUzebp+TotEj1Jg3wmDNZ8d8w5wO1wh0 stgjafEStmwjQhfkwNGZ4xEl3na0Rt9hXXrTE= Received: by 10.223.95.202 with SMTP id e10mr56021fan.32.1296576368191; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:06:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b7sm7926184faa.18.2011.02.01.08.06.06 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:06:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D482F85.1030101@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:06:29 +0200 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, "uri-review@ietf.org" , URI References: <20110201155345.83007.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20110201155345.83007.qmail@joyce.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:03:14 -0000 01.02.2011 17:53, John Levine wrote: >> This is like that. Let's not waste everyone's time. >> In fact, let's not waste any more time discussing it. > I certainly see rough consensus (everyone except one) that there is > nothing to do here. So I encourage people to resist the urge to > debate it further. Dear all, If there is a rough consensus to remain this scheme Provisional, this means that there should be proper specification. Even RFC 1738 is not appropriate here, as it is obsoleted. Does anyone one want to specify this? The answer is obviously 'no'. The same answer is to the question 'Move to Historic?'. And for 'Do anything else?' This seems to be a deadlock. Therefore for I'll contact apps Area directors for their final decision. Mykyta Yevstifeyev > R's, > John > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > From sm@elandsys.com Tue Feb 1 15:29:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61A4D3A6C52 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:29:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jUruXyJo2K42 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:29:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA343A688F for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:29:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.239.186]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p11NWWfW020632 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:32:37 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1296603158; bh=58iDW66xREQNpO43POpFsfE3RJs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=CAVzAWMJGZ8xbzX6zKlUcjevXPUSoX+dk/2Zl1WoLDErpDBjw3KH0DNIUp6Y7VfvH HwDEu5meJeduD2Xh5hcuYiEJHho8cRpgCDOE7Z+YFkPfI92uWQRuwcDVBRYQJRz8ch coFKenQrRkv655Evh830eeq4s3Nbg4zLC9IeuDkU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110201151913.0aafb038@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:29:58 -0800 To: apps-discuss@ietf.org From: S Moonesamy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [apps-discuss] Apps Area Review Team Report for January 2011 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:29:23 -0000 Hello, The Applications Area Review Team provides semi-formal reviews of Internet-Drafts as a way to improve the quality of IETF specifications. The members of the team are selected from the IETF community, especially from among active participants and recognized experts in the Applications Area. The following reviews have been performed in January 2011: Reviewer I-D Ted Hardie draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-01 Yves Lafon draft-bryan-metalinkhttp-19 Pending review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc assigned to Glenn Parsons draft-salowey-secsh-uri assigned to Joe Hildebrand draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis assigned to Dave Cridland There was some discussion about a previous review [1][2][3]. It would be helpful to all parties if authors follow up on a review by posting a reply to the apps-discuss mailing list. Regards, S. Moonesamy On behalf of the Apps Review Team http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02216.html 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02202.html 3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02232.html From stpeter@stpeter.im Tue Feb 1 15:32:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E1BD3A6DD8 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:32:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Clhzj2G8N0E6 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:32:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB8ED3A6DCC for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:32:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from leavealone.cisco.com (72-163-0-129.cisco.com [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A57A400F6; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:52:34 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4D4898CF.6070702@stpeter.im> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:35:43 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110201151913.0aafb038@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110201151913.0aafb038@elandnews.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms030707050907000904010408" Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area Review Team Report for January 2011 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:32:30 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms030707050907000904010408 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2/1/11 4:29 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > It would > be helpful to all parties if authors follow up on a review by posting a= > reply to the apps-discuss mailing list. And it would be helpful for the ADs to ping the authors to that effect if needed, so I'll start doing that. Peter --=20 Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ --------------ms030707050907000904010408 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIITzjCC BjQwggQcoAMCAQICASMwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQAwfTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoT DVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNp Z25pbmcxKTAnBgNVBAMTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTA3 MTAyNDIxMDMzM1oXDTE3MTAyNDIxMDMzM1owgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1T dGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWdu aW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAzIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENs aWVudCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBALmjSW4SPiDKlAinvVeL ZOVfItiuP1aRHL530E7QUc9icCwL33+PH+Js1HAh8CgWFl34sOxx1FJyS/C4VLPRsqDfP72j tzCVUAL0DAxZ7wgzQvFz7x61jGxfhYhqYb1+PPOLkYBbkRIrPMg3dLEdKmXIYJYXDH+mB/V/ jLo73/Kb7h/rNoNg/oHHSv5Jolyvp5IY2btfcTBfW/telEFj5rDTX2juTvZ3Qhf3XQX5ca3Q 7A10zrUV/cWJOJ7F5RltbEIaboZmX5JBUb3FhUiAdBotehAX6DbDOuYoJtVxmGof6GuVGcPo 98K4TJf8FHo+UA9EOVDp/W7fCqKT4sXk/XkCAwEAAaOCAa0wggGpMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMB Af8wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMB0GA1UdDgQWBBR7iZySlyShhEcCy3T8LvSs3DLl8zAfBgNV HSMEGDAWgBROC+8apEBbpRdphzDKNGhD0EGu8jBmBggrBgEFBQcBAQRaMFgwJwYIKwYBBQUH MAGGG2h0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jYTAtBggrBgEFBQcwAoYhaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc2ZzY2EuY3J0MFsGA1UdHwRUMFIwJ6AloCOGIWh0dHA6Ly93d3cu c3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNybDAnoCWgI4YhaHR0cDovL2NybC5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20v c2ZzY2EuY3JsMIGABgNVHSAEeTB3MHUGCysGAQQBgbU3AQIBMGYwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwNAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWKGh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2ludGVybWVkaWF0ZS5wZGYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQADggIBAGpd SbdLFMhirxK37V4gE00+uW74UdAXtDgQI3AsRZWtaRtKHgAxFBSteqz4kDkeAjH/1b+K8tQR 6cxSI2nho7qOaPW/UpzOfSS/MeKK/9vfM2lfs+uItXH7LWtvS9wD1erfH1a+BXHCrCp4LA1l fADDhRIiGTSS3i0Zu5xV3INNRHrCCCl6patltQ8RZTqzDMri7ombgIxjN51Zo7xV77EZcThV 0GA8iIN+7T53uHhUJpjfLIztHs/69OclRvHux9hCflfOm7GY5Sc4nqjfES+5XPArGGWiQSEk ez37QfXqsxO3oCHK4b3DFZysG4uyOuC/WL80ab3muQ3tgwjBhq0D3JZN5kvu5gSuNZPa1WrV hEgXkd6C7s5stqB6/htVpshG08jRz9DEutGM9oKQ1ncTivbfPNx7pILoHWvvT7N5i/puVoNu bPUmLXh/2wA6wzAzuuoONiIL14Xpw6jLSnqpaLWElo2yTIFZ/CU/nCvvpW1Dj1457P3Ci9bD 0RPkWSR+CuucpgxrEmaw4UOLxflzuYYaq1RJwygOO5K0s2bAWOcXpgteyUOnQ3d/EjJAWRri 2v0ubiq+4H3KUOMlbznlPAY/1T8YyyJPM88+Ueahe/AW1zoUwZayNcTnuM7cq6yBV8Wr3GOI LFXhtT0UVuJLChPMJKVKVsa7qNorlLkMMIIGxzCCBa+gAwIBAgICAIswDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEF BQAwgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJT ZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBD bGFzcyAzIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQTAeFw0xMDEwMTQwMTM2MzRa Fw0xMjEwMTQxMjAxMDdaMIHAMSAwHgYDVQQNExcyNzQ1ODEtOU5YMDRxeExEYjBvNDY5VDEL MAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxETAPBgNVBAgTCENvbG9yYWRvMQ8wDQYDVQQHEwZEZW52ZXIxLDAqBgNV BAsTI1N0YXJ0Q29tIFRydXN0ZWQgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgTWVtYmVyMRowGAYDVQQDExFQZXRl ciBTYWludC1BbmRyZTEhMB8GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYSc3RwZXRlckBzdHBldGVyLmltMIIBIjAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAuERvnrkpQTx9wbJfgxbNKEYvt0IilecZRUM6 wrbCzIUPCocuYhaAJcQoqIyHaKybPQ7f+DIGIAolAa3dHnNdlsXP2smTft/ZNpj10PIG5bil NAqLUYwmLJaEaqY7BMW8423U3blW43/luLJk/Pq4OsWcw7AK3LeVh1U/HOgqhin26N3h72X1 nbLEpZFrgcp8egmWtXLCbLBDMqUK3j6wjLldni79muzYEVqU0A5GqSeb8Wc4kIx8VI5yL24J KzinG2iVRP5ZDEbOZETzBXJabUsV56XSxqPG9DK6ke+ybCiL/wKV1HFqdtFB1y25lfvHgOP2 gyEApBKEDNjgLmKyyQIDAQABo4IC+zCCAvcwCQYDVR0TBAIwADALBgNVHQ8EBAMCBLAwHQYD VR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMB0GA1UdDgQWBBS2EW2iNB+g0EibKJLBdv8I eLovVDAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBR7iZySlyShhEcCy3T8LvSs3DLl8zAdBgNVHREEFjAUgRJzdHBl dGVyQHN0cGV0ZXIuaW0wggFCBgNVHSAEggE5MIIBNTCCATEGCysGAQQBgbU3AQICMIIBIDAu BggrBgEFBQcCARYiaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vcG9saWN5LnBkZjA0BggrBgEF BQcCARYoaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vaW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlLnBkZjCBtwYIKwYB BQUHAgIwgaowFBYNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjADAgEBGoGRTGltaXRlZCBMaWFiaWxpdHksIHNl ZSBzZWN0aW9uICpMZWdhbCBMaW1pdGF0aW9ucyogb2YgdGhlIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmlj YXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5IFBvbGljeSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNz bC5jb20vcG9saWN5LnBkZjBjBgNVHR8EXDBaMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3Ns LmNvbS9jcnR1My1jcmwuY3JsMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vY3JsLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jcnR1 My1jcmwuY3JsMIGOBggrBgEFBQcBAQSBgTB/MDkGCCsGAQUFBzABhi1odHRwOi8vb2NzcC5z dGFydHNzbC5jb20vc3ViL2NsYXNzMy9jbGllbnQvY2EwQgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGNmh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NlcnRzL3N1Yi5jbGFzczMuY2xpZW50LmNhLmNydDAjBgNVHRIE HDAahhhodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADVtbXJG tKAr55xc/OUM546gXUybI72Bank0w739Mv+9BBNtq9rMEvCnLmSKhBi76c1mdXh6zXs8RQDo 6nR/aPabE3llF2T4z80smi9jfnl3y9dpu9TcgDoqDLZ7a2lBlW656XAAQzHjvLp2MC7/mxlg PYH2axa+q40mAYM20GbNsAEGbWQT1IqIh0BcLLsgbaMJHbyG/57zd9JLyMX3Vry1L1fJRQr3 GeLxMV5RtxN+mBgxrwFz/cOc09COiFExlsHgekpB5O43gqsAU16MXypyoSt4MrSfKTMHIGx6 2RF/M6vqUlvhi28gk2ZUvQ/+OX5+gjcZyooEzAAn4RuOKNswggbHMIIFr6ADAgECAgIAizAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4x KzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxODA2BgNVBAMT L1N0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgQ2xpZW50IENBMB4XDTEw MTAxNDAxMzYzNFoXDTEyMTAxNDEyMDEwN1owgcAxIDAeBgNVBA0TFzI3NDU4MS05TlgwNHF4 TERiMG80NjlUMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzERMA8GA1UECBMIQ29sb3JhZG8xDzANBgNVBAcTBkRl bnZlcjEsMCoGA1UECxMjU3RhcnRDb20gVHJ1c3RlZCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBNZW1iZXIxGjAY BgNVBAMTEVBldGVyIFNhaW50LUFuZHJlMSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJzdHBldGVyQHN0cGV0 ZXIuaW0wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC4RG+euSlBPH3Bsl+DFs0o Ri+3QiKV5xlFQzrCtsLMhQ8Khy5iFoAlxCiojIdorJs9Dt/4MgYgCiUBrd0ec12Wxc/ayZN+ 39k2mPXQ8gbluKU0CotRjCYsloRqpjsExbzjbdTduVbjf+W4smT8+rg6xZzDsArct5WHVT8c 6CqGKfbo3eHvZfWdssSlkWuBynx6CZa1csJssEMypQrePrCMuV2eLv2a7NgRWpTQDkapJ5vx ZziQjHxUjnIvbgkrOKcbaJVE/lkMRs5kRPMFclptSxXnpdLGo8b0MrqR77JsKIv/ApXUcWp2 0UHXLbmV+8eA4/aDIQCkEoQM2OAuYrLJAgMBAAGjggL7MIIC9zAJBgNVHRMEAjAAMAsGA1Ud DwQEAwIEsDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwHQYDVR0OBBYEFLYRbaI0 H6DQSJsoksF2/wh4ui9UMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFHuJnJKXJKGERwLLdPwu9KzcMuXzMB0GA1Ud EQQWMBSBEnN0cGV0ZXJAc3RwZXRlci5pbTCCAUIGA1UdIASCATkwggE1MIIBMQYLKwYBBAGB tTcBAgIwggEgMC4GCCsGAQUFBwIBFiJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3ku cGRmMDQGCCsGAQUFBwIBFihodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9pbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUu cGRmMIG3BggrBgEFBQcCAjCBqjAUFg1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMAMCAQEagZFMaW1pdGVkIExp YWJpbGl0eSwgc2VlIHNlY3Rpb24gKkxlZ2FsIExpbWl0YXRpb25zKiBvZiB0aGUgU3RhcnRD b20gQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgUG9saWN5IGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCBodHRwOi8v d3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3kucGRmMGMGA1UdHwRcMFowK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NydHUzLWNybC5jcmwwK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRz c2wuY29tL2NydHUzLWNybC5jcmwwgY4GCCsGAQUFBwEBBIGBMH8wOQYIKwYBBQUHMAGGLWh0 dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zdWIvY2xhc3MzL2NsaWVudC9jYTBCBggrBgEFBQcw AoY2aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2VydHMvc3ViLmNsYXNzMy5jbGllbnQuY2Eu Y3J0MCMGA1UdEgQcMBqGGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tLzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUF AAOCAQEANW1tcka0oCvnnFz85QznjqBdTJsjvYFqeTTDvf0y/70EE22r2swS8KcuZIqEGLvp zWZ1eHrNezxFAOjqdH9o9psTeWUXZPjPzSyaL2N+eXfL12m71NyAOioMtntraUGVbrnpcABD MeO8unYwLv+bGWA9gfZrFr6rjSYBgzbQZs2wAQZtZBPUioiHQFwsuyBtowkdvIb/nvN30kvI xfdWvLUvV8lFCvcZ4vExXlG3E36YGDGvAXP9w5zT0I6IUTGWweB6SkHk7jeCqwBTXoxfKnKh K3gytJ8pMwcgbHrZEX8zq+pSW+GLbyCTZlS9D/45fn6CNxnKigTMACfhG44o2zGCA80wggPJ AgEBMIGTMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UE CxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRD b20gQ2xhc3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAgCLMAkGBSsOAwIa BQCgggIOMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTExMDIw MTIzMzU0M1owIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFGkHbgxUGOWmnYQZ5VdxtTZCyCZAMF8GCSqGSIb3 DQEJDzFSMFAwCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggq hkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDCBpAYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGWMIGT MIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2Vj dXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xh c3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAgCLMIGmBgsqhkiG9w0BCRAC CzGBlqCBkzCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNV BAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxODA2BgNVBAMTL1N0YXJ0 Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgQ2xpZW50IENBAgIAizANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQCB4d0GNNtOyun48RGKD32C7QPqPEzqe9smdIMMxBdBHr5FO16OjcP5Os/q hRFQzDDssNrJvDRUSYWwFW7lAv5e4QKV3lKN5UkVfy2s59eGMVPlROzOG0uCgVNQhq7jZbfH hbQQSorsST4/ADZesX5J+cOW+yJk37ahKtfeMMxLCoHj8UAwUUkI5yHozP7Ry8wuY6EDf2LJ cm/8cdmwtrHgwU/4uVovT/rQntTWCIe9034FSd5fbii5FxEdqUqp8G3eeb3ud4ba9UL6rTko EIAdUvQHZyxMvyJD8WK9se57dlG99lia5IxIYwYCqfrUye86nrHX91a6rwY7dJnOoa+IAAAA AAAA --------------ms030707050907000904010408-- From evnikita2@gmail.com Thu Feb 3 02:28:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EFC33A68E9 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 02:28:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.223 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.223 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.585, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iKS946ejaZHP for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 02:28:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D543A68D8 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 02:28:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so1070788fxm.31 for ; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 02:31:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type; bh=7S+7Us2H4/WAE3xyziFmY09A2MRpscagm9PMGYPpgB4=; b=L0GkA5Fsijygjj+KDNap8fM3SjqCD7lKBdZVT9ng68o9l4TRHKX1GVFQK6n4PRcucS Q+hkllT2UV9xaHzb1QgE2FsLQF2UVJ+jY3vSHqKPsq/XHpArVEiEantDjl37DnwKy+j4 oehwnazhOj4qgZSDEgPBr2PXppLia45vDRRWo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type; b=Vbg58iITnMMuYz+qJumd4KWdUrzfBZsqPAo1H3PxjqrO3rsKNW9+GdH3AvppxBwusF WDQa7dM9kQfahoEMwdYR+2uuR8xsBVUUE1NJ66ObUrvrFk2bN6zJ6GeCy0j9g4AjS5pG b6BQRB3tatboo9hBeVURhL1BG5pIEyxQnE7nE= Received: by 10.223.104.147 with SMTP id p19mr9963544fao.6.1296729098210; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 02:31:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n15sm196573fam.36.2011.02.03.02.31.36 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 03 Feb 2011 02:31:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D4A8420.9070908@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:32:00 +0200 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070909000704010003000000" Subject: [apps-discuss] Request for Review - draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:28:18 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070909000704010003000000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all, In accordance with RFC 4395 I'm asking to review the draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00, that can be found here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 This document specifies the 'rlogin' URI scheme. The Rlogin protocol is defined in RFC 1282. Thank you for your time, Mykyta Yevstifeyev P.S. I've also posted such message on uri-review list. Mykyta --------------070909000704010003000000 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello all,

In accordance with RFC 4395 I'm asking to review the draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00, that can be found here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00

This document specifies the 'rlogin' URI scheme.  The Rlogin protocol is defined in RFC 1282.

Thank you for your time,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

P.S. I've also posted such message on uri-review list.  Mykyta
 --------------070909000704010003000000-- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Feb 3 06:36:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C3983A6990 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:36:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.758 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.288, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id scMBIAdbS67Z for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:36:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6138E3A698A for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:36:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from MacBook-08.local (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p13EdYc1055969 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:39:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Message-ID: <4D4ABE26.7010700@vpnc.org> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 06:39:34 -0800 From: Paul Hoffman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apps-discuss@ietf.org References: <4D4A8420.9070908@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D4A8420.9070908@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Request for Review - draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:36:14 -0000 On 2/3/11 2:32 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > Hello all, > > In accordance with RFC 4395 I'm asking to review the > draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00, that can be found here: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 > > This document specifies the 'rlogin' URI scheme. The Rlogin protocol is > defined in RFC 1282. > > Thank you for your time, > Mykyta Yevstifeyev > > P.S. I've also posted such message on uri-review list. Mykyta This seems like another waste of time. From moore@network-heretics.com Thu Feb 3 06:38:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C7413A6998 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:38:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iqGpvZx4aMO7 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:38:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 612E33A6990 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:38:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.41]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D8520214; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:41:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 03 Feb 2011 09:41:40 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagingengine.com; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=smtpout; bh=Ya/dwr0eygwhfv5wVvMaPuL5JPY=; b=uIUYpeS9CR/v2bmVYpUpSJvZjlSLq7QZdLWYdxiEHDz98UVWAYaagWSAfCISoo4fGfy+5J2tV/+u0XSfT8gdqD4IYQa/K59VK6XfkcSCBU9ocwQTVbW8bCspPcU4lxhiKE5yA9CBixDpZPBbEn548Y/jM+JFNTMUlzoVLQKY0VI= X-Sasl-enc: 0wLRwIDI5lyv8t6jvwUxWn5o26tdNuTuvFZeGG6Kzc5a 1296744099 Received: from 184-212-79-137.pools.spcsdns.net (184-212-79-137.pools.spcsdns.net [184.212.79.137]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7EA6840B88A; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:41:39 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Keith Moore In-Reply-To: <4D4ABE26.7010700@vpnc.org> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:41:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <544689D2-8ABE-426B-BE76-A462024FCDA4@network-heretics.com> References: <4D4A8420.9070908@gmail.com> <4D4ABE26.7010700@vpnc.org> To: Paul Hoffman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Request for Review - draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:38:19 -0000 On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 2/3/11 2:32 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> In accordance with RFC 4395 I'm asking to review the >> draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00, that can be found here: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 >> >> This document specifies the 'rlogin' URI scheme. The Rlogin protocol is >> defined in RFC 1282. >> >> Thank you for your time, >> Mykyta Yevstifeyev >> >> P.S. I've also posted such message on uri-review list. Mykyta > > This seems like another waste of time. +1 From evnikita2@gmail.com Thu Feb 3 06:49:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82543A699C for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:49:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.581, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IdL1UrmoNWvh for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:49:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB65E3A6980 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:49:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so1351473fxm.31 for ; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 06:52:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=awxCRHx0tIiEj6PeSNzsf/bYMXXBte3pK4MNfeS3ME4=; b=vFxBrt3UvlG0fjKtoz+XDKxAggcNdEiakJhqwRZ0+SIsNl1Tmo07mK67GTMfCURTh9 ezal1SQ5foBFUUK9pD6tghKfwiI6sPgUdRJt3Cx0et67FZd6jLDK2Kvbt05NqpvORBc/ aOiR7w3VHZmgTxBmA1QXwcSoNzG2ZDrLy0aww= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xbesGJq8yuwoGreJJXGnprHWtvCLRd92r8NuClitJ5h3clz1euwvRwpKuwkEejy2SL e1IwclaxrOfFL48SFP2Q6A91+mz7rWFKp7X4jh8GpbXjpTk0eWE3bABQ3tqLjN0BSvIE ipMrBzyEnch9fc4YFxWXelTgA5WpYX9OQrkE0= Received: by 10.223.101.195 with SMTP id d3mr5147523fao.21.1296744759649; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 06:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5sm311261fak.23.2011.02.03.06.52.37 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 03 Feb 2011 06:52:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D4AC14D.3040608@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:53:01 +0200 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Hoffman References: <4D4A8420.9070908@gmail.com> <4D4ABE26.7010700@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: <4D4ABE26.7010700@vpnc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Request for Review - draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:49:18 -0000 03.02.2011 16:39, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 2/3/11 2:32 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> In accordance with RFC 4395 I'm asking to review the >> draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00, that can be found here: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 >> >> This document specifies the 'rlogin' URI scheme. The Rlogin protocol is >> defined in RFC 1282. >> >> Thank you for your time, >> Mykyta Yevstifeyev >> >> P.S. I've also posted such message on uri-review list. Mykyta > > This seems like another waste of time. I do not know why do you think so - Rlogin is quite widely-used alternative for Telnet on Unix systems. > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Feb 3 07:01:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DBA73A69B5 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:01:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.759 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.287, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SjFyTiFmO-ld for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:01:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB1CF3A69B3 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:01:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from MacBook-08.local (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p13F5FHa057173 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:05:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Message-ID: <4D4AC42A.7050303@vpnc.org> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 07:05:14 -0800 From: Paul Hoffman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apps-discuss@ietf.org References: <4D4A8420.9070908@gmail.com> <4D4ABE26.7010700@vpnc.org> <4D4AC14D.3040608@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D4AC14D.3040608@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Request for Review - draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:01:54 -0000 On 2/3/11 6:53 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > 03.02.2011 16:39, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On 2/3/11 2:32 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> In accordance with RFC 4395 I'm asking to review the >>> draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00, that can be found here: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 >>> >>> This document specifies the 'rlogin' URI scheme. The Rlogin protocol is >>> defined in RFC 1282. >>> >>> Thank you for your time, >>> Mykyta Yevstifeyev >>> >>> P.S. I've also posted such message on uri-review list. Mykyta >> >> This seems like another waste of time. > I do not know why do you think so - Rlogin is quite widely-used > alternative for Telnet on Unix systems. Mykyta: do you read the responses to your earlier drafts? If you do, you would in fact know why I think so. It is the same reason as I and others have said the same thing about most/all your other proposals. If you don't read the responses, then I would very much encourage you to stop posting to any IETF WG lists: they are supposed to be discussions, not one-way announcements. From lehmann@strato-rz.de Thu Feb 3 07:27:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221C73A69CB; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:27:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k2aTn4xOk9tN; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:27:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from fredda.webgods.de (fredda.webgods.de [192.166.196.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4682B3A69C7; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:27:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D4ACA2A.3080401@strato-rz.de> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:30:50 +0100 From: Steffen Lehmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: morg@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [apps-discuss] New draft at MORG: POP3 LIST+ Extension X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:27:32 -0000 Hello, there is a new draft at http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lehmann-morg-pop3listplus/ describing the "POP3 LIST+ Extension". Although it is related to POP3 instead of IMAP, I have put it into MORG, because MORG's goals are fitting best. Comments and suggestions are solicited. Steffen From john-ietf@jck.com Thu Feb 3 07:51:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B1E43A6932 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:51:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.928 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.928 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.329, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z2ciZ27HEI-Z for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:51:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0B83A697E for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:51:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Pl1Vr-0008ef-KE; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:54:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:54:26 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev , apps-discuss@ietf.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4D4A8420.9070908@gmail.com> References: <4D4A8420.9070908@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Request for Review - draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:51:07 -0000 Mykyta, Please consider this a micro-review as well as a request. Speaking for myself and not in any "official" capacity I might have, I really appreciate the amount of energy and effort you are putting into updating and classifying documents and tying up assorted loose ends. Unfortunately, many of us have other commitments both inside and outside the IETF, to the point that your having many individual submission (non-WG) documents outstanding at once almost guarantees that few of them will get adequate review. Reflecting on some of the other comments you have received, I suggest that the dividing line between "useful update or supplement to existing protocol or document" and "waste of time" is very narrow indeed. While a specification or three that lay close to that boundary might be accepted by the community (especially if well-motivated as to why the work is needed), a large collection of such proposals, without good motivation, are likely to result in increases in the number of people who assume everything you are submitting falls into the "wasting your time and that of everyone else" category. May I suggest that you try to prioritize review requests somewhat so as to avoid having the decisions as to what gets reviewed made at random or of having people conclude that you simply have too much time on your hands and assume others do too. In the case of this particular spec, my decision to look at it was more driven by curiosity about what you had covered and the particular time at which I saw you note than by any rational decision on my part. I consider that a symptom of the problem. However, now that I have glanced at it: (1) Despite the assertions in the draft, rlogin was never defined by the IETF. Both RFCs 1258 and 1282 are informational documents that described the state of the protocol (as of twenty years ago) for the information of the IETF community. Neither reflects the state of the protocol or user-level commands as they are implemented and defined today. You might examine http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=rlogin&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+8.1-RELEASE&format=html as an example of documentation that is closer to the contemporary practice (but it only describes one implementation for one operating system). (2) It is probably a bad idea to create URIs that make it easy to use badly-designed, security-problematic, protocols... and to use them in those problematic ways. If there were a compelling need to do so, that might be different but, IMO, it would also carry with it the need to either -- have an up-to-date IETF spec with a decent security analysis or -- reference documentation for at least most the popular implementations in the URI spec and include a security analysis there. (3) If we really want to do a URI for rlogin (you can deduce from the rest of this message that I have my doubts), we should do something complete and comprehensive, addressing both the many options in contemporary versions of the protocol and the other transports over which similar facilities are used. (4) There is a very general design question about the desirability of defining URIs to open terminal sessions or the equivalent. I seem to be in the IETF minority in being concerned about that (e.g., we have a Telnet URI registered and the ftp one can be used to open an interactive session), but I think it would be lots more useful to get a URI defined for rsh (or to combine the two) or sftp than to have one for rlogin. Whether even though would fall above the threshold for not being a waste of time is a separate question; again, I have my doubts. regards, john --On Thursday, February 03, 2011 12:32 +0200 Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > Hello all, > > In accordance with RFC 4395 I'm asking to review the > draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00, that can be found here: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 > > This document specifies the 'rlogin' URI scheme. The Rlogin > protocol is defined in RFC 1282. > > Thank you for your time, > Mykyta Yevstifeyev > > P.S. I've also posted such message on uri-review list. Mykyta From evnikita2@gmail.com Thu Feb 3 08:16:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61AC43A6A1A for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:16:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.571, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tdVEUb2Nhzes for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580243A6A0A for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so1445422fxm.31 for ; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:20:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mDRII9xeBzT1XCx6HS/xgenIziEiKrNYH00O8oa4mW4=; b=HCnWIw8r960ObXAwXXSm4XJiTXohhcdNVnxsWYcYU8OsJUUwypoXOnrZ6m2U4MAEVP 9GUshYzC9dzNgBthCny71AOlk+yQ0TN8GUeQKeSQpQP8qiDWDsLRfkbSg1EsxGa/tdUg Kx+eIqMTyJ8lyN3X26xJVD1ZKTFZOtSao0jCA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=PDPiZW5iRpTMusQCbBsiN+SonmEjGoHeiKy2zOWkkAjsEbGrZN3RzEKnzI9w7z+0fy D9zoDfGJZ2ANZIVwHXSdAQ75tTv9ajxXw29MocvlZhOaihU69ZRIYhoo/hBaVZCO+Yn4 aQGuwCe7bizp3GxWivNIXGnCilCCVBYQkFHm0= Received: by 10.223.96.6 with SMTP id f6mr6747163fan.22.1296750001183; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:20:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e17sm358422fak.10.2011.02.03.08.19.58 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:19:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D4AD5C5.3000807@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:20:21 +0200 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apps-discuss@ietf.org References: <4D4A8420.9070908@gmail.com> <4D4ABE26.7010700@vpnc.org> <4D4AC14D.3040608@gmail.com> <4D4AC42A.7050303@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: <4D4AC42A.7050303@vpnc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Request for Review - draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:16:40 -0000 03.02.2011 17:05, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 2/3/11 6:53 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >> 03.02.2011 16:39, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> On 2/3/11 2:32 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> In accordance with RFC 4395 I'm asking to review the >>>> draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00, that can be found here: >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 >>>> >>>> This document specifies the 'rlogin' URI scheme. The Rlogin >>>> protocol is >>>> defined in RFC 1282. >>>> >>>> Thank you for your time, >>>> Mykyta Yevstifeyev >>>> >>>> P.S. I've also posted such message on uri-review list. Mykyta >>> >>> This seems like another waste of time. >> I do not know why do you think so - Rlogin is quite widely-used >> alternative for Telnet on Unix systems. > > Mykyta: do you read the responses to your earlier drafts? If you do, > you would in fact know why I think so. It is the same reason as I and > others have said the same thing about most/all your other proposals. > If you don't read the responses, then I would very much encourage you > to stop posting to any IETF WG lists: they are supposed to be > discussions, not one-way announcements. If something appears for one proposal, it is not sure this will be said about the other one. My right - to propose; yours - to accept or decline. Mykyta > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Feb 3 08:31:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D4483A69D1 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:31:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.761 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.761 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.285, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Fz6ebHTbSTx for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:31:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630703A69B3 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:31:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from MacBook-08.local (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p13GZ4OW061539 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:35:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Message-ID: <4D4AD937.8010906@vpnc.org> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:35:03 -0800 From: Paul Hoffman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apps-discuss@ietf.org References: <4D4A8420.9070908@gmail.com> <4D4ABE26.7010700@vpnc.org> <4D4AC14D.3040608@gmail.com> <4D4AC42A.7050303@vpnc.org> <4D4AD5C5.3000807@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D4AD5C5.3000807@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Request for Review - draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:31:43 -0000 On 2/3/11 8:20 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > 03.02.2011 17:05, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On 2/3/11 6:53 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >>> 03.02.2011 16:39, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>>> On 2/3/11 2:32 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> In accordance with RFC 4395 I'm asking to review the >>>>> draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00, that can be found here: >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 >>>>> >>>>> This document specifies the 'rlogin' URI scheme. The Rlogin >>>>> protocol is >>>>> defined in RFC 1282. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your time, >>>>> Mykyta Yevstifeyev >>>>> >>>>> P.S. I've also posted such message on uri-review list. Mykyta >>>> >>>> This seems like another waste of time. >>> I do not know why do you think so - Rlogin is quite widely-used >>> alternative for Telnet on Unix systems. >> >> Mykyta: do you read the responses to your earlier drafts? If you do, >> you would in fact know why I think so. It is the same reason as I and >> others have said the same thing about most/all your other proposals. >> If you don't read the responses, then I would very much encourage you >> to stop posting to any IETF WG lists: they are supposed to be >> discussions, not one-way announcements. > If something appears for one proposal, it is not sure this will be said > about the other one. My right - to propose; yours - to accept or decline. Of course. But you said that you did not know why I thought this was a waste of time. If you had read earlier responses from me and many other members of the IETF community, you would have known that. From ietfc@btconnect.com Thu Feb 3 09:29:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4118D3A6A39 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:29:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2CV5QlGiNgzJ for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:29:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2beaomr06.btconnect.com [213.123.26.184]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193103A6A37 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:29:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from host81-152-46-124.range81-152.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([81.152.46.124]) by c2beaomr06.btconnect.com with SMTP id BVG38441; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:33:04 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <00bf01cbc3bf$7e510580$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: "t.petch" To: "Keith Moore" , "Paul Hoffman" References: <4D4A8420.9070908@gmail.com> <4D4ABE26.7010700@vpnc.org> <544689D2-8ABE-426B-BE76-A462024FCDA4@network-heretics.com> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:28:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Neutral-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.4D4AE6CF.00DC, actions=TAG X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr06.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0208.4D4AE6D5.02DA,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=single engine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Request for Review -draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:29:54 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Moore" To: "Paul Hoffman" Cc: Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 3:41 PM > On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On 2/3/11 2:32 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > >> > >> In accordance with RFC 4395 I'm asking to review the > >> draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00, that can be found here: > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 > >> > >> This document specifies the 'rlogin' URI scheme. The Rlogin protocol is > >> defined in RFC 1282. > >> > >> Thank you for your time, > >> Mykyta Yevstifeyev > >> > >> P.S. I've also posted such message on uri-review list. Mykyta > > > > This seems like another waste of time. > > +1 + another one Tom Petch From ietfc@btconnect.com Thu Feb 3 09:45:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20753A6A2D for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:45:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o5u-B4OWEhRt for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:45:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2beaomr08.btconnect.com [213.123.26.186]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43E323A69D9 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:45:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from host81-152-46-124.range81-152.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([81.152.46.124]) by c2beaomr08.btconnect.com with SMTP id BOL53320; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:49:10 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <012101cbc3c1$bda06120$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: "t.petch" To: "John C Klensin" , References: <4D4A8420.9070908@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:45:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Neutral-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4D4AEA95.0132, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr08.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.4D4AEA96.013D,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=single engine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Subject: [apps-discuss] sftp Re: Request for Review - draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:45:59 -0000 John A propos sftp, there was a joint ssh/sftp I-D in the secssh WG but it fell by the wayside for lack of support in the WG. The ssh part made it to IETF Last Call last November and, 50 days later, the status is revised I-D needed. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "John C Klensin" To: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev" ; Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:54 PM Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Request for Review - draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 > Mykyta, > > Please consider this a micro-review as well as a request. > > Speaking for myself and not in any "official" capacity I might > have, I really appreciate the amount of energy and effort you > are putting into updating and classifying documents and tying up > assorted loose ends. Unfortunately, many of us have other > commitments both inside and outside the IETF, to the point that > your having many individual submission (non-WG) documents > outstanding at once almost guarantees that few of them will get > adequate review. Reflecting on some of the other comments you > have received, I suggest that the dividing line between "useful > update or supplement to existing protocol or document" and > "waste of time" is very narrow indeed. While a specification > or three that lay close to that boundary might be accepted by > the community (especially if well-motivated as to why the work > is needed), a large collection of such proposals, without good > motivation, are likely to result in increases in the number of > people who assume everything you are submitting falls into the > "wasting your time and that of everyone else" category. > > May I suggest that you try to prioritize review requests > somewhat so as to avoid having the decisions as to what gets > reviewed made at random or of having people conclude that you > simply have too much time on your hands and assume others do too. > > In the case of this particular spec, my decision to look at it > was more driven by curiosity about what you had covered and the > particular time at which I saw you note than by any rational > decision on my part. I consider that a symptom of the problem. > However, now that I have glanced at it: > > (1) Despite the assertions in the draft, rlogin was never > defined by the IETF. Both RFCs 1258 and 1282 are informational > documents that described the state of the protocol (as of twenty > years ago) for the information of the IETF community. Neither > reflects the state of the protocol or user-level commands as > they are implemented and defined today. You might examine > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=rlogin&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=Free BSD+8.1-RELEASE&format=html > as an example of documentation that is closer to the > contemporary practice (but it only describes one implementation > for one operating system). > > (2) It is probably a bad idea to create URIs that make it easy > to use badly-designed, security-problematic, protocols... and to > use them in those problematic ways. If there were a > compelling need to do so, that might be different but, IMO, it > would also carry with it the need to either > > -- have an up-to-date IETF spec with a decent security > analysis or > > -- reference documentation for at least most the popular > implementations in the URI spec and include a security > analysis there. > > (3) If we really want to do a URI for rlogin (you can deduce > from the rest of this message that I have my doubts), we should > do something complete and comprehensive, addressing both the > many options in contemporary versions of the protocol and the > other transports over which similar facilities are used. > > (4) There is a very general design question about the > desirability of defining URIs to open terminal sessions or the > equivalent. I seem to be in the IETF minority in being > concerned about that (e.g., we have a Telnet URI registered and > the ftp one can be used to open an interactive session), but I > think it would be lots more useful to get a URI defined for rsh > (or to combine the two) or sftp than to have one for rlogin. > Whether even though would fall above the threshold for not being > a waste of time is a separate question; again, I have my doubts. > > regards, > john > > > --On Thursday, February 03, 2011 12:32 +0200 Mykyta Yevstifeyev > wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > In accordance with RFC 4395 I'm asking to review the > > draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00, that can be found here: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-rlogin-uri-00 > > > > This document specifies the 'rlogin' URI scheme. The Rlogin > > protocol is defined in RFC 1282. > > > > Thank you for your time, > > Mykyta Yevstifeyev > > > > P.S. I've also posted such message on uri-review list. Mykyta > > > > > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From yuhongbao_386@hotmail.com Wed Feb 2 15:46:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D5C3A6C85 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:46:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GqDiRjsOagU1 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:46:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from snt0-omc3-s46.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc3-s46.snt0.hotmail.com [65.54.51.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32D233A6CA1 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:46:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from SNT125-W15 ([65.55.90.135]) by snt0-omc3-s46.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:50:03 -0800 Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [67.183.8.18] From: Yuhong Bao To: Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:50:03 -0800 Importance: Normal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Feb 2011 23:50:04.0029 (UTC) FILETIME=[E99C8AD0:01CBC333] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:13:45 -0800 Subject: [apps-discuss] On draft-ietf-websec-mime-sniff-01... X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 02:30:48 -0000