Section 2.1: Please replace 'segment' by '*pchar' and import pchar instead of segment from STD 66. The * indicates the main point "zero or more" (unlike <segment-nz>), and pchar is for me clearer than segment: Above all it's none of the five terms for slightly different paths.

and additional tons of MUSTs and MUST NOTs dealing with something that doesn't exist. This draft is now in the worst state for this year, that is not very encouraging for this trivial task. Claiming that there are no about: IRIs makes no sense as soon as there is an <about-query>, cf. RFC 3987 <iquery> and <ifragment>.

There is only one thing we know what went wrong: when t= hey leave out "PEACE" from that figure of speech "in peace a= nd in war". Much honor is given to out "fathers" in war.

They have forgotten the many they do not enter the famo= us wars for many reasons then a way out. In that camp you know many still w= ent on and got those institutionalized awards.

There is no award here. There is no party. There is no win. There is no war= .

Mars is stateless; it is in peace with any polit= ical party. It is not stateless with OUR physical realms.

That "OUR" is the "fathers" I aim this messa= ge towards. You know who you are... =A0you heard for yourself where justice= has said "your case is now impossible to solve." As impossible a= s it is to look up in the sky at night and see infinitely. And, they still = want me to prove it by hand?

...by hand?

I think GOD cut-of= f that offensive part. No brainer it takes eyes not hands to see the infini= te. We do not bejudge people wrong because their hand does not do what so f= ew realize as god given gifts to see for themselves.

It's extremely offensive to this world all over how= fathers are treated like idiot lights for state income because they fall i= nto that camp. You know where the "stateless" discussion started = and you know how it ends.

Acceptance is the only way. Notice the addition of &quo= t;in peace"

---

I ha= ve this over few trillion dollar case that just tempts me to file like a nu= ke in the state. They can't afford it! Their "stupid" "v= iolent" "out-of-control" application that tracks child suppo= rt continue to charge monthly wage garnishments even when the children are = 1) at school, 2) not at school, 3) at primary parents house, 4) not at prim= ary parents house, 5) at "fathers" house, 6) not at "fathers= " house, 7) at the doctors office, 8) not at the doctors office, ....<= /div>

9) lost

10) dead

XXX) I could go on= ... and explain how the interest compounds exponentially that there is not = enough money printed. It never had ANY PRACTICAL LIMIT!

Former President Clinton looked at my case as said : "do nothing&= quot;

I think that is what Spirit is doing now.

"Something"... not war. And you wonder abo= ut the origin of life? Blindsided. Until next awakening...

They really show how much they "support" chil= dren up until "the real" y2k bug, which isn't until... you kn= ow. I'm suppose to be quiet about...u..? I'll won't end this in= dazzle as asked.

--20cf3079bb06a6522404afa7c09e-- From dave@cridland.net Wed Oct 19 07:49:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480CA21F8BB1 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:49:28 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ODhmiixLx410 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:49:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net (peirce.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:2e0:81ff:fe29:d16a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6B421F8B5B for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:49:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB691168087 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:49:24 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at peirce.dave.cridland.net Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DXPhy3NgrdoX for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:49:21 +0100 (BST) Received: from puncture (puncture.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:221:85ff:fe3f:1696]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7F2601168067 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:49:21 +0100 (BST) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <2535.1319035761.505119@puncture> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:49:21 +0100 From: Dave Cridland To: General discussion of application-layer protocols Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Mars Rover Spirit dedicated to "fathers" of the Internet. X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:49:28 -0000 On Wed Oct 19 15:35:33 2011, Dzonatas Sol wrote: > Mars is stateless; Am I the only one who read this far and decided that Mars would be compatible with UDP and HTTP? > it is in peace with any political party. It is not > stateless with OUR physical realms. Probably somebody introduced cookies, then. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Oct 19 08:00:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B8C21F8C53 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:00:39 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LfYDM-16uCwS for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:00:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2890721F8C55 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:00:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leavealone.cisco.com (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BCF341E49; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:05:30 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4E9EE611.7000907@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:00:33 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apps-discuss@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [apps-discuss] administrivia X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:00:39 -0000 Because the last posting from "Dzonatas Sol" was so seriously off topic, as one of the list admins I have moderated (but not prohibited) posting from mailto:dzonatas@gmail.com to prevent further incidents. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Oct 19 08:57:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BE2421F8C5D for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:57:11 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZBv+7ibzCGud for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2529921F8AF3 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9JFul5p029650 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:56:47 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9JFukCH029643 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:56:46 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'General discussion of application-layer protocols'" References: <2535.1319035761.505119@puncture> In-Reply-To: <2535.1319035761.505119@puncture> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:56:45 +0100 Message-ID: <020e01cc8e77$b4235a90$1c6a0fb0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQLcRm+l0pWeEV03/siSblsvywWN2wHIDLGyk1Yh3MA= Content-Language: en-gb Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Mars Rover Spirit dedicated to "fathers" of the Internet. X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:57:11 -0000 > > Mars is stateless; > > Am I the only one who read this far and decided that Mars would be > compatible with UDP and HTTP? Afraid I read as "Mars is tasteless" and wondered whether this was a Hershey's fan. A From ned.freed@mrochek.com Wed Oct 19 11:37:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B60211E808F for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:37:24 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5-KWnyzihpXO for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:37:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1423311E808A for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:37:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O7EEVU008W011ADO@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O7DDMQ0XQO00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-id: <01O7EEVR67JU00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:32:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Ned Freed In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:08:39 +0300" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN References: <20111018191615.13760.71231.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:37:24 -0000 > Murray, > Are you going to incorporate my feedback > (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg69885.html)? Speaking only for myself, I didn't find any of these suggested changes to be at all compelling. In particular, I find the FOO [FOO] thing more troublesome than helpful. I also don't care in the slightest about matching some sort of New Abstract style. And finally, the applicability of the two maturity level stuff to this effort is for the IESG to sort out. Ned From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Oct 19 11:39:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6998311E80AA for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:39:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.689 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.689 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q4YobA0P18MH for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:39:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1767511E808A for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:39:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:39:43 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:39:42 -0700 Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt Thread-Index: AcyOjim1Zo5Rt8+XRIyLEhW3i1RDEAAADG2g Message-ID: References: <20111018191615.13760.71231.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01O7EEVR67JU00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: <01O7EEVR67JU00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:39:44 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org= ] On Behalf Of Ned Freed > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:32 AM > To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev > Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.= txt >=20 > > Are you going to incorporate my feedback > > (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg69885.html)? >=20 > Speaking only for myself, I didn't find any of these suggested changes to= be at > all compelling. In particular, I find the FOO [FOO] thing more troublesom= e than > helpful. I also don't care in the slightest about matching some sort of N= ew > Abstract style. And finally, the applicability of the two maturity level = stuff > to this effort is for the IESG to sort out. Concur on all points. From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Oct 20 12:48:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5046B1F0C3D for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:48:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.678 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v7k14+q3NJl9 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:48:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A611321F8AA8 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:48:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:48:26 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "Michael O'Reirdan @ Comcast" , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:48:25 -0700 Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] New release of draft-oreirdan-rosenwald-ipv6mail-transition-01 Thread-Index: AQHMg5xWyPFcjUZyOkmPH2zQ7IYUipWFs7Rg Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14BA6EXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "draft-oreirdan-rosenwald-ipv6mail-transition@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] New release of draft-oreirdan-rosenwald-ipv6mail-transition-01 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 20 Oct 2011 19:48:29 -0000 --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14BA6EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Mike, I think it's going to be important for documents like this one to exist as = ISPs go through these transitions. I'm glad your team is taking the time t= o get it started and get people talking about it. I'd be happy to contribu= te some text to various sections. This draft appears to be still pretty young so this is a more cursory revie= w than I would give something approaching a Last Call. Thus, a few general= points: Sections 1.4-1.6 should be subsections of, or even just paragraphs in, Sect= ion 1.1. You might even consider just including them in the References sec= tion. (And the current RFC for SMTP is 5321.) Section 1.7 mentions being provisioned a public IP address, but if any kind= of NAT is in use inside the service provider, the end user isn't exactly p= rovisioned a public IP address (in the sense that the end user might now be= sharing that address). Section 3 should probably include a note to the RFC Editor to remove it pri= or to publication. I imagine when this finally goes up for publication tha= t we would have reached a point where a better understanding of these issue= s has been attained. Section 5 might benefit from a brief discussion of Dual-Stack or Dual-Stack= Lite. There might be an RFC or two to reference. Section 6, paragraph TRANS2: I didn't understand what the last sentence is = trying to say, especially that IPv6 services "SHOULD be treated as producti= on by other Internet organizations." What does that mean, exactly? Section 7, paragraph POST2: Same. I expect Sections 8 and 9 will be big. The next revision might benefit fro= m having an outline in the form of some subsection headings that we can the= n fill out. Section 12 should probably be removed. The details about abuse issues can = appear in Section 15 when they become available, and/or in sections to whic= h those details are specific (8, 9, 10, and 11, for example). Section 13: The RFCs listed there should probably be identified by name or = acronym; as presented, most people won't know what they are or why they're = relevant. They should also all appear in the Informative References sectio= n. (And DKIM is now RFC6376.) I also note that RFC4408 (SPF) is absent; = was that intentional? Also Section 13: Since you mention domain reputation, you might want to ref= erence the REPUTE working group drafts (as works-in-progress) once that gro= up actually forms. Section 14: Paragraph two refers to "customer residence", but doesn't this = document also apply to business customers? Also Section 14: Paragraph three talks about public announcement of CIDR bl= ock sizes. A lot more needs to be said here, I think. If we need a mechan= ism to do this, we should think about creating a design team for such a met= hod and build and test a prototype. It might also tie in to what the WEIRD= S group (not yet a WG) is seeking to provide. Also Section 14: Paragraph four has one sentence about throttling. I think= this is a topic ripe for expansion and even some BCP-type text. Also Section 14: Paragraph five (6to4, NAT) doesn't seem clear to me. Section 15: I think this section will become a lot bigger as IPv6-specific = abuse items reveal themselves. I imagine SECDIR will certainly require som= ething a lot more detailed than what's there now. Section 16: "PII" needs to be expanded and defined on first use. General: It seems like this document should refer to RFC6302 (Logging Recom= mendations for Internet-Facing Servers), and maybe make some suggestions ab= out what ISPs should log in correspondence. -MSK From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] = On Behalf Of O'Reirdan, Michael Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:21 PM To: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [apps-discuss] New release of draft-oreirdan-rosenwald-ipv6mail-tr= ansition-01 Please take a look at this and comment, it got lots of comments on the 00 v= ersion Mike O'Reirdan http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-oreirdan-rosenwald-ipv6mail-transition-01 --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14BA6EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Mike,

I think it’s goin= g to be important for documents like this one to exist as ISPs go through t= hese transitions. I’m glad your team is taking the time to get = it started and get people talking about it. I’d be happy to con= tribute some text to various sections.

This= draft appears to be still pretty young so this is a more cursory review th= an I would give something approaching a Last Call. Thus, a few genera= l points:

Sections 1.4-1.6 should be subsecti= ons of, or even just paragraphs in, Section 1.1. You might even consi= der just including them in the References section. (And the current R= FC for SMTP is 5321.)

Section 1.7 mentions be= ing provisioned a public IP address, but if any kind of NAT is in use insid= e the service provider, the end user isn’t exactly provisioned a publ= ic IP address (in the sense that the end user might now be sharing that add= ress).

Section 3 should probably include a no= te to the RFC Editor to remove it prior to publication. I imagine whe= n this finally goes up for publication that we would have reached a point w= here a better understanding of these issues has been attained.

Section 5 might benefit from a brief discussion of Dual= -Stack or Dual-Stack Lite. There might be an RFC or two to reference.=

<= /p>

Section 6, paragraph TRANS2: I didn’t = understand what the last sentence is trying to say, especially that IPv6 se= rvices “SHOULD be treated as production by other Internet organizatio= ns.” What does that mean, exactly?

Section 7, paragraph POST2: Same.

I expect = Sections 8 and 9 will be big. The next revision might benefit from ha= ving an outline in the form of some subsection headings that we can then fi= ll out.

<= /span>

Section 12 should probably be removed= . The details about abuse issues can appear in Section 15 when they b= ecome available, and/or in sections to which those details are specific (8,= 9, 10, and 11, for example).

Section 13: The= RFCs listed there should probably be identified by name or acronym; as pre= sented, most people won’t know what they are or why they’re rel= evant. They should also all appear in the Informative References sect= ion. (And DKIM is now RFC6376.) I also note that RFC4408 = (SPF) is absent; was that intentional?

Also= Section 13: Since you mention domain reputation, you might want to referen= ce the REPUTE working group drafts (as works-in-progress) once that group a= ctually forms.

Section 14: Paragraph two refe= rs to “customer residence”, but doesn’t this document als= o apply to business customers?

Also Section 1= 4: Paragraph three talks about public announcement of CIDR block sizes.&nbs= p; A lot more needs to be said here, I think. If we need a mechanism = to do this, we should think about creating a design team for such a method = and build and test a prototype. It might also tie in to what the WEIR= DS group (not yet a WG) is seeking to provide.

Also Section 14: Paragraph four has one sentence about throttling. = I think this is a topic ripe for expansion and even some BCP-type text.

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>Also Section 14: Paragraph five (6to4, NAT) does= n’t seem clear to me.

Section 15: I thi= nk this section will become a lot bigger as IPv6-specific abuse items revea= l themselves. I imagine SECDIR will certainly require something a lot= more detailed than what’s there now.

Section 16: “PII” needs to be expanded = and defined on first use.

General: It seems l= ike this document should refer to RFC6302 (Logging Recommendations for Inte= rnet-Facing Servers), and maybe make some suggestions about what ISPs shoul= d log in correspondence.

<= o:p>

-MSK

<= div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0= in 0in'>

From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps= -discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of O'Reirdan, Michael
Sen= t: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:21 PM
To: apps-discuss@ietf.= org
Subject: [apps-discuss] New release of draft-oreirdan-rosenwa= ld-ipv6mail-transition-01

Please take a look= at this and comment, it got lots of comments on the 00 version<= /span>

Mike O'Reirdan

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-oreir= dan-rosenwald-ipv6mail-transition-01

= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14BA6EXCHC2corpclo_-- From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Oct 20 16:05:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC151F0C43 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:05:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.718 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D6JPl0iy+iZ9 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F03D1F0C34 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-202.cisco.com (unknown [64.101.72.202]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B74541E49; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:10:53 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4EA0A94C.9030003@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:05:48 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann References: <20111018203341.3470.52152.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E9DE481.4090607@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 20 Oct 2011 23:05:55 -0000 On 10/19/11 7:20 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > On 18 October 2011 22:41, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01 > > Thanks. > > How about adding RFC 4395 as another example for an IANA registry > permitting provisional registrations? And maybe the "provisional" > feature should get a SHOULD or MAY in section 3, not only a note > in appendix B. Hi Frank, how is this? (BTW I also changed the order slightly.) ### 4. Recommendations for Protocol Designers Designers of new application protocols that allow extensions using parameters: 1. SHOULD establish registries with potentially unlimited value- spaces, if appropriate including both permanent and provisional registries. 2. SHOULD define simple, clear registration procedures. 3. SHOULD mandate registration of all non-private parameters, independent of the form of the parameter names. 4. SHOULD identify a convention to allow local or implementation- specific extensions, and reserve delimeters for such uses as needed. 5. SHOULD NOT prohibit parameters with the "X-" prefix from being registered with the IANA. 6. MUST NOT assume that a parameter with an "X-" prefix is non- standard. 7. MUST NOT assume that a parameter without an "X-" prefix is standard. ### From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Oct 21 12:38:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E624921F891D for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:38:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.708 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.708 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VSQKJ12QQU1O for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DA121F86EC for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-202.cisco.com (unknown [64.101.72.202]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4509841E49 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:43:56 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4EA1CA4C.3010009@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:38:52 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [apps-discuss] reminder: I-D subsmission deadlines X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:38:55 -0000 Just a friendly reminder: 1. The cut-off date for -00 versions of Internet-Drafts is next Monday, October 24, at 00:00 UTC (17:00 PT). 2. The cut-off date for non-00 versions is the following Monday, October 31, at 00:00 UTC (17:00 PT). Happy writing! Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From msk@cloudmark.com Fri Oct 21 12:51:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 497E911E808E for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:51:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.706 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.706 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z4d9scwRWx69 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1AC911E8088 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:51:55 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Peter Saint-Andre , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:51:54 -0700 Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01.txt Thread-Index: AcyN1lhZl5qrQV/VT8ubt/QuG44WVgCU34FA Message-ID: References: <20111018203341.3470.52152.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E9DE481.4090607@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4E9DE481.4090607@stpeter.im> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:51:56 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org= ] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:42 PM > To: apps-discuss@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01.txt >=20 > On 10/18/11 2:33 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area > > Working Group Working Group of the IETF. > > > > Title : Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in > > Application Protocols Author(s) : Peter Saint-Andre D. Crocker > > Mark Nottingham Filename : draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01.txt > > Pages : 12 Date : 2011-10-18 >=20 > The diff is here: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01 >=20 > Thanks to Alexey Melnikov for the review that prompted this revision. Hi Peter, I like this a lot. Simple, to the point, excellent delivery of the history. After re-reading it from top-to-bottom, the only gripe I have is that, in t= he second paragraph of Section 1, the use of "advancement" feels ambiguous.= Was said "advancement" because the experimental namespace leaked into the= standard namespace, or because what we might expect as "advancement" (i.e.= , registration) has been more expensive than it's worth? The idea of advancement from non-standard space to standard space to me sug= gests the dropping of "X-", but that's exactly what you're saying isn't hap= pening when it should. The question is really answered in the appendices quite clearly, but it see= ms having to go there to figure out what this paragraph means suggests a bi= t more detail here is needed. I suggest: Although in theory the "X-" convention was a good way to avoid collisions (and attendant interoperability problems) between standard parameters and non-standard parameters, in practice the costs associated with the advancement of non-standard parameters into the standards space, without proper conversion and registration, have outwei= ghed the benefits. Therefore this document deprecates the "X-" convention for most application protocols and makes specific recommendations about how = to proceed in a world without the distinction between standard and non-stan= dard parameters. ...or something like that. Otherwise, nice work! -MSK From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Oct 21 15:47:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A8E11E8080 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:47:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5702ky8VCI8C for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 546C311E8073 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (unknown [216.17.140.216]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6085541E49; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:52:02 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4EA1F659.3010602@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:46:49 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: <20111018203341.3470.52152.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E9DE481.4090607@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:47:01 -0000 On 10/21/11 1:51 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org >> [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter >> Saint-Andre Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:42 PM To: >> apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: >> draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01.txt >> >> On 10/18/11 2:33 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line >>> Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the >>> Applications Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF. >>> >>> Title : Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix >>> in Application Protocols Author(s) : Peter Saint-Andre D. >>> Crocker Mark Nottingham Filename : >>> draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01.txt Pages : 12 Date >>> : 2011-10-18 >> >> The diff is here: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01 >> >> Thanks to Alexey Melnikov for the review that prompted this >> revision. > > Hi Peter, > > I like this a lot. Simple, to the point, excellent delivery of the > history. On behalf of my co-authors, I say thanks! > After re-reading it from top-to-bottom, the only gripe I have is > that, in the second paragraph of Section 1, the use of "advancement" > feels ambiguous. Was said "advancement" because the experimental > namespace leaked into the standard namespace, or because what we > might expect as "advancement" (i.e., registration) has been more > expensive than it's worth? I see two kinds of cost here: 1. Experimental parameters become de facto standards, which confuses people because they tend to think that "it starts with 'x-' so it must not be a standardized parameter" (etc.). Such confusion wastes valuable mental energy. 2. Some people want de facto standards to become de jure standards, which means they have to jump through hoops, perhaps change the parameter name, encourage developers to implement code for the new name in addition to the old name, etc. In general, I prefer "leakage" to "advancement" because it has less tincture of movement up a standards track as in RFC 2026. > The idea of advancement from non-standard space to standard space to > me suggests the dropping of "X-", but that's exactly what you're > saying isn't happening when it should. > > The question is really answered in the appendices quite clearly, but > it seems having to go there to figure out what this paragraph means > suggests a bit more detail here is needed. > > I suggest: > > Although in theory the "X-" convention was a good way to avoid > collisions (and attendant interoperability problems) between > standard parameters and non-standard parameters, in practice the > costs associated with the advancement of non-standard parameters into > the standards space, without proper conversion and registration, have > outweighed the benefits. Therefore this document deprecates the "X-" > convention for most application protocols and makes specific > recommendations about how to proceed in a world without the > distinction between standard and non-standard parameters. > > ...or something like that. Or just change "advancement" to "leakage", perhaps? > Otherwise, nice work! Thanks! Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From msk@cloudmark.com Fri Oct 21 16:37:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4012E11E8085 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:37:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.678 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0NUVuiKg9dtr for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDBAE11E8073 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:37:16 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Peter Saint-Andre Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:37:14 -0700 Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01.txt Thread-Index: AcyQQ1vfKbFKFaDFQYOxd4TFdCrStAABvXhg Message-ID: References: <20111018203341.3470.52152.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E9DE481.4090607@stpeter.im> <4EA1F659.3010602@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4EA1F659.3010602@stpeter.im> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:37:17 -0000 PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBQZXRlciBTYWludC1BbmRyZSBb bWFpbHRvOnN0cGV0ZXJAc3RwZXRlci5pbV0NCj4gU2VudDogRnJpZGF5LCBPY3RvYmVyIDIxLCAy MDExIDM6NDcgUE0NCj4gVG86IE11cnJheSBTLiBLdWNoZXJhd3kNCj4gQ2M6IGFwcHMtZGlzY3Vz c0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW2FwcHMtZGlzY3Vzc10gSS1EIEFjdGlvbjogZHJh ZnQtaWV0Zi1hcHBzYXdnLXhkYXNoLTAxLnR4dA0KPiANCj4gT3IganVzdCBjaGFuZ2UgImFkdmFu Y2VtZW50IiB0byAibGVha2FnZSIsIHBlcmhhcHM/DQoNCldvcmtzIGZvciBtZS4gIFRoYW5rcywN Ci1NU0sNCg== From julian.reschke@gmx.de Sat Oct 22 00:53:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2B821F8B8E for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:53:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SFrx3chlYYZD for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 02DAA21F8B9E for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:53:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2011 07:53:49 -0000 Received: from p5DCC8207.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.130.7] by mail.gmx.net (mp052) with SMTP; 22 Oct 2011 09:53:49 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/KJZwVkIXK8YeZPfHqChfSBQ+S/aF420UIrGU1+N 4VVNO2F0OYJkov Message-ID: <4EA27687.1040800@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:53:43 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Nottingham References: <20111018234005.22724.87290.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: httpbis Group , Apps Discuss , Jan Algermissen Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:53:55 -0000 On 2011-10-19 01:57, Mark Nottingham wrote: > FYI. Some adjustment of the status codes in -01, and one new one (thanks to Jan for the idea). > ... Looks good. Let's finish this. One concern, one nit: - it's suboptimal that we have an example of a Refresh header field with no spec for it (that could be worked around by making it a META tag in the response body) - in appendix B, s/network filesystem access/remote authoring/. Best regards, Julian From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Sat Oct 22 08:26:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246F621F8488 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:26:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dq5rQP6BYsVe for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:26:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84E7721F84D2 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:26:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxi11 with SMTP id 11so276325yxi.31 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:26:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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; bh=YoJUY+0fQRTYNtawjkeRmIr/3PAJtFX6cyvcIiQe3Cc=; b=OdqMYFL5lVrHV/kir3w3QndSUBuCPvUNRySSRtqqIjogQY9bo6iHiRdnFoLefGJV/g S5eHrt9sGA/8sju1sEg0j90HEFuSXN91r1acU6N6B9ciXyXBsBHJJoHhVxkAKfECHV2R 1ICOR4prxRykAyT/pk0szbUriCSDWP+YHxhKk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.146.7.13 with SMTP id 13mr4103508yag.15.1319297169975; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.147.153.8 with HTTP; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:26:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4EA1CA4C.3010009@stpeter.im> References: <4EA1CA4C.3010009@stpeter.im> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:26:09 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: P6hRN26yyoYbGMKJuD2kqhfr7Ts Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Peter Saint-Andre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] reminder: I-D subsmission deadlines X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:26:11 -0000 > 1. The cut-off date for -00 versions of Internet-Drafts is next Monday, > October 24, at 00:00 UTC (17:00 PT). > > 2. The cut-off date for non-00 versions is the following Monday, October > 31, at 00:00 UTC (17:00 PT). To be clear (and the IETF web page is not), the cutoffs are NOT on the Mondays at 00:00 UTC. They are on the Mondays at 17:00 PDT, which translates to 00:00 UTC on TUESDAY (or 24:00 UTC Monday, if you prefer to think of it that way). Timezones are so COMplicated! Barry From mnot@mnot.net Sat Oct 22 21:45:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50DD221F8B0D for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:45:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.062 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.463, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E7QFqfMytYfB for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A93121F8593 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.71.208]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BABA622E1EB; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 00:44:52 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: <4EA27687.1040800@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:44:49 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5676DF1A-5AB1-4CBD-88B9-242050235D3A@mnot.net> References: <20111018234005.22724.87290.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4EA27687.1040800@gmx.de> To: Julian Reschke X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: httpbis Group , Apps Discuss , Jan Algermissen Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 04:45:01 -0000 Thanks; updated on github. On 22/10/2011, at 6:53 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-10-19 01:57, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> FYI. Some adjustment of the status codes in -01, and one new one = (thanks to Jan for the idea). >> ... >=20 > Looks good. Let's finish this. >=20 > One concern, one nit: >=20 > - it's suboptimal that we have an example of a Refresh header field = with no spec for it (that could be worked around by making it a META tag = in the response body) >=20 > - in appendix B, s/network filesystem access/remote authoring/. >=20 > Best regards, Julian -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From evnikita2@gmail.com Mon Oct 24 02:15:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AEA721F84C2 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:15:48 -0700 (PDT) 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=-0.209, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6LNmSBeFQ-+s for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5047321F8C13 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkas6 with SMTP id s6so9159701bka.31 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:15:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=t5WEgGyoI3CxKrxOIMDmZF9jm2EvKjAfx2unNpu9jRo=; b=jIAX7BoaRnk0o02t885NSEeG1XlDeM/Ezndq2iYscch+vbjxAOZqMa0EePL+wAss0d 6NWMYRC/oWBvU9DRY8Qi7MW7x8vnsNkNrcyf0eEdMEyoSrHShAPAwq4ifvM82WiaCC/F qDzxvyzkehv1loEZ5km/orEagpJDdX9YNz/g4= Received: by 10.204.131.66 with SMTP id w2mr9632511bks.49.1319447745427; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w8sm22883398bks.11.2011.10.24.02.15.43 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4EA52CEC.4050009@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:16:28 +0300 From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Apps-discuss list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:15:48 -0000 Hello, After Bjoern Hoehrmann noticed that 'disclosure' relation type is being used but not properly specified (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00294.html), I've drafted the registration document. I've already announced that on link-relations list (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00296.html), but in order to get more feedback I would also like to notify folks on this list. So the draft is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00. Please feel free to provide you comments on it, cc'ing to link-relations@ietf.org. Thanks, Mykyta Yevstifeyev From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Oct 24 09:19:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289631F0C4D; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:19:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WS4cdipkov-M; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B792F1F0C4E; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:19:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.61 Message-ID: <20111024161910.8048.2279.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:19:10 -0700 Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:19:11 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working Group Worki= ng Group of the IETF. Title : Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Applicat= ion Protocols Author(s) : Peter Saint-Andre D. Crocker Mark Nottingham Filename : draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2011-10-24 Historically, designers and implementers of application protocols have often distinguished between "standard" and "non-stan= dard" parameters by prefixing the latter with the string "X-" or sim= ilar constructions. In practice, this convention causes more problems than it solves. Therefore, this document deprecates the "X-" convention for most application protocol parameters. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt From paulej@packetizer.com Mon Oct 24 13:09:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F1E11E8080 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:09:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xU-o-egVGACn for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A5B11E80C4 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:09:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sydney (rrcs-98-101-150-160.midsouth.biz.rr.com [98.101.150.160]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p9OK9rbG012651 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:09:54 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1319486994; bh=lYZI1+YFQKOLYAhF+3PrGYHWJzNgldBFixTvcw1t1uk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=R5HlxfdJ2p3x0mHOfYukayt/+n/LHjIhAFqZkInD9nDskGCLgCR192/q37cv1XgM0 xu/f9fXoFKH1zZHznEIX5yfrwJK1UjtqAYcQ5nDjZsKetMuXfS1gwnQ/ZbdvwcZSPS 7GQt/a56RQAlCXGYeF4YLm4nP+YeozvDkWYXyl7w= From: "Paul E. Jones" To: Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:09:50 -0400 Message-ID: <032101cc9288$e3a06910$aae13b30$@packetizer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0322_01CC9267.5C8EC910" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Content-language: en-us Thread-index: AcySiOHWZHrUUWZ0SIe1B4nUS477zw== Cc: Joseph Smarr , Gonzalo Salgueiro Subject: [apps-discuss] Webfinger X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:09:58 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0322_01CC9267.5C8EC910 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, We just submitted this: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-00.txt The tools for Webfinger are now defined, but the procedures need to be clearer with respect to what most of us understand as "webfinger". This is just a first stab at making that happen and we hope to progress this to publish an RFC in the application area. We welcome any comments you have on the topic, either privately or publicly. Paul ------=_NextPart_000_0322_01CC9267.5C8EC910 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Folks,

We just = submitted this:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jones-appsawg= -webfinger-00.txt

The tools = for Webfinger are now defined, but the procedures need to be clearer = with respect to what most of us understand as = “webfinger”. This is just a first stab at making that = happen and we hope to progress this to publish an RFC in the application = area.

We welcome any comments you have on the topic, either = privately or publicly.

Paul

------=_NextPart_000_0322_01CC9267.5C8EC910-- From hgs@cs.columbia.edu Mon Oct 24 09:54:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02CBB21F8D61 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:54:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kyKcjfgmfQXL for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brinza.cc.columbia.edu (brinza.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F0F21F8D54 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:54:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ice.cs.columbia.edu (ice.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.18.177]) (user=hgs10 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by brinza.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9OGskYZ020058 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) From: Henning Schulzrinne In-Reply-To: <20111024161910.8048.2279.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:54:45 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6960B259-2ED5-4B4F-96A2-3015D82E84E0@cs.columbia.edu> References: <20111024161910.8048.2279.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-No-Spam-Score: Local X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.8 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:24:03 -0700 Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:54:53 -0000 The same problem description applies to P- headers in SIP. (They have = been deprecated as well.) Henning On Oct 24, 2011, at 12:19 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working = Group Working Group of the IETF. >=20 > Title : Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix = in Application Protocols > Author(s) : Peter Saint-Andre > D. Crocker > Mark Nottingham > Filename : draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2011-10-24 >=20 > Historically, designers and implementers of application protocols > have often distinguished between "standard" and = "non-standard" > parameters by prefixing the latter with the string "X-" or = similar > constructions. In practice, this convention causes more problems > than it solves. Therefore, this document deprecates the = "X-" > convention for most application protocol parameters. >=20 >=20 > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >=20 From presnick@qualcomm.com Tue Oct 25 09:55:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1503221F8B75 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:55:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.464 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qp4nbm9A7g1r for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7033E21F8AFB for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:55:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1319561727; x=1351097727; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<4EA6E9E2.2080308@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20Tu e,=2025=20Oct=202011=2011:54:58=20-0500|From:=20Pete=20Re snick=20|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv:1.9.1.9)=20Gecko/20100630=20Eudora/3.0.4 |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20"Murray=20S.=20Kucherawy"=20|CC:=20"apps-discuss@ietf.org"=20|Subject:=20Re:=20[apps-discuss]=20I-D=20 Action:=20draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt |References:=20<20111018191615.13760.71231.idtracker@ietf a.amsl.com>=09=09<01O7EEVR67JU00RCTX@mauve.mro chek.com>=20|In-Reply-To:=20 |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"ISO-8859-1" =3B=20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit |X-Originating-IP:=20[172.30.48.1]; bh=TQkk8KVxXecnRkwJwisGzlDf7SnjKWE5GHNZ3+HYMGg=; b=p+tFRBG9rgvGsIcLXgHa1esk+TUBBVx4vjvwXy87OpiYEFx+gG+B7DJl VDWYWBuxXpUC8E7t7n+JT8iqITydqlFtof3/iwd1YurPL8h7U5N8iXRr4 Xl4VsxBH+AUJ/OrSLEso+7WQ58kbt2dfbGfdeY802s9Ng7JvVZ15PXoa1 Y=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6509"; a="130628835" Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 25 Oct 2011 09:55:26 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,404,1315206000"; d="scan'208";a="148592642" Received: from nasanexhc05.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.2]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 25 Oct 2011 09:55:26 -0700 Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:55:06 -0700 Message-ID: <4EA6E9E2.2080308@qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:54:58 -0500 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: <20111018191615.13760.71231.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01O7EEVR67JU00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1] Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 25 Oct 2011 16:55:28 -0000 On 10/19/11 1:39 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg69885.html >>> >> ...the applicability of the two maturity level stuff to this effort is for the IESG to sort out. >> > Concur on all points. > The IESG is of the opinion that this should go for the new "Internet Standard" designation. That means running a new, 4-week, last call. I will initiate that tomorrow unless I hear yelps of horror from the WG. If I do hear such yelps, you had better give me an argument to bring back to the IESG that I can defend. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 From ned.freed@mrochek.com Tue Oct 25 10:17:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49B821F8AF4 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:17:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OJnMB6ReZSk8 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:17:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88A421F8A56 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:17:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O7MPSZFI9S017BPI@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:14:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O7HN0KKSXC00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-id: <01O7MPSWCQIQ00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:08:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Ned Freed In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:54:58 -0500" <4EA6E9E2.2080308@qualcomm.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; Format=flowed References: <20111018191615.13760.71231.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01O7EEVR67JU00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EA6E9E2.2080308@qualcomm.com> To: Pete Resnick Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 25 Oct 2011 17:17:04 -0000 > On 10/19/11 1:39 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg69885.html > >>> > >> ...the applicability of the two maturity level stuff to this effort is for the IESG to sort out. > >> > > Concur on all points. > > > The IESG is of the opinion that this should go for the new "Internet > Standard" designation. That means running a new, 4-week, last call. I > will initiate that tomorrow unless I hear yelps of horror from the WG. Go for it! There are a fair number of documents I think we'll be able to progress given only two maturity levels. But given this is a new process, it would be much better if the first document was one that was being processed for another, preferably minor, reason. This document seems like the perfect candidate. Ned From john@jck.com Tue Oct 25 12:48:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E381F0C49 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:48:16 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VjAKW2KFyFUo for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:48:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F4FF1F0C46 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:48:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1RImyq-000BAM-PC; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:48:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:48:12 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Ned Freed , Pete Resnick Message-ID: <17E2CBDBC869661E838F3B79@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <01O7MPSWCQIQ00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> References: <20111018191615.13760.71231.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01O7EEVR67JU00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EA6E9E2.2080308@qualcomm.com> <01O7MPSWCQIQ00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.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 Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 25 Oct 2011 19:48:16 -0000 --On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:08 -0700 Ned Freed wrote: >> The IESG is of the opinion that this should go for the new >> "Internet Standard" designation. That means running a new, >> 4-week, last call. I will initiate that tomorrow unless I >> hear yelps of horror from the WG. > > Go for it! > > There are a fair number of documents I think we'll be able to > progress given > only two maturity levels. But given this is a new process, it > would be much > better if the first document was one that was being processed > for another, > preferably minor, reason. This document seems like the perfect > candidate. +1 From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Tue Oct 25 17:44:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E0F1F0C57 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:44:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.915 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CbqSw29uTik8 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209F11F0C4F for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gyh20 with SMTP id 20so1225484gyh.31 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:44:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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; bh=eumkSctL+OZfiWW1lde1qjMO5KAudKsGz9dZxHOVcdo=; b=SKxx7BH8enlhR5QPFN1E2y6+wxLMXU5WTSGNeDCpS9/kPE63a7V9cV9p1BvvK8E9d5 o475a4t/jNdG+nZVE6NdTLEQVVFEfzKwcMoD9Ic9HeRqSLQ0qoa+SItfYGeZujn1i4w+ 0NcQa5e0hADXl3BFpKnn8KNGV++iKCkqotNa4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.147.5.22 with SMTP id h22mr5207388yai.0.1319589871640; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.146.250.14 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:44:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4EA6E9E2.2080308@qualcomm.com> References: <20111018191615.13760.71231.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01O7EEVR67JU00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EA6E9E2.2080308@qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:44:31 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: WzKkfEnFGRrqo0bGyBJSfBjmHhQ Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Pete Resnick Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 00:44:32 -0000 > The IESG is of the opinion that this should go for the new "Internet > Standard" designation. That means running a new, 4-week, last call. I will > initiate that tomorrow unless I hear yelps of horror from the WG. If I do > hear such yelps, you had better give me an argument to bring back to the > IESG that I can defend. I am mildly annoyed that this wasn't anticipated in the first last call, and that we didn't just extend the last call for two weeks to accommodate this, since RFC 6410 wasn't published when this doc was processed before. That said, this is a transition issue, and, as far as I can tell, this is the *only* document that's affected. And a four-week delay in moving this forward will do no harm whatsoever. I agree with Russ's assessment that it's not a good idea to try to make the first application of 6410 be an exception. So, yes, let's do another four-week last call just on this point, and then get this out as the first upgrade to Internet Standard. Barry, document shepherd From sm@resistor.net Tue Oct 25 22:50:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F7921F8AFB for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:50:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gf8AUQTqGkUW for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:50:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0936C21F8AF5 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p9Q5nqbd018764 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:50:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1319608203; bh=ZjQ0cuupQ8zhgrER4muNMsi2Dz8obsF40TYV71ESKaA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=ViE6lBP1QD26AOl9WL4VORpkCp0pttZ0CPaWV4Ql2hQlnFW0AnGkSFIVRz9IONBmG 6WvU7JoRKq772N9M3RJhQvXEbdRzCuqWFpSBVXow7LCh0ChSMcAZzoSFqodq17OHg8 doRQGPLBcZqacGIRuIap2Z8DAYvPUIIBz4x7ZqOc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1319608203; bh=ZjQ0cuupQ8zhgrER4muNMsi2Dz8obsF40TYV71ESKaA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=tyjmWEr/aWRzvvuH34pPZfvOarg0A80YklblElu3Ccy9oLPjF2CEIksJI/64+J1JQ HavdUbTR+blHoUNBzFcbzLY6zCMIIn47m2wxacfIFnxA952Qf2PtILxovqIJrVfNvC zEzmzrjh+QLE3os5JNhrrOwIUEo0Ycpg4Zra6T0k= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111025222554.09564380@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:34:54 -0700 To: apps-discuss@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <4EA6E9E2.2080308@qualcomm.com> References: <20111018191615.13760.71231.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01O7EEVR67JU00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EA6E9E2.2080308@qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 05:50:12 -0000 At 09:54 25-10-2011, Pete Resnick wrote: >The IESG is of the opinion that this should go for the new "Internet >Standard" designation. That means running a new, 4-week, last call. >I will initiate that tomorrow unless I hear yelps of horror from the >WG. If I do hear such yelps, you had better give me an argument to >bring back to the IESG that I can defend. I am not opposed to the above. What happens to the RFC 5337 update? Regards, -sm From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Oct 26 01:09:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A654D21F8B30 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 01:09:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.746 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.746 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W1V6Oce7a87A for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 01:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8A521F8B2A for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 01:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 01:09:00 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 01:09:01 -0700 Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt Thread-Index: AcyTTxIPcamAWeWtS2ayudwi6YLU6gAZ2Hkg Message-ID: References: <20111018191615.13760.71231.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01O7EEVR67JU00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EA6E9E2.2080308@qualcomm.com> <01O7MPSWCQIQ00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <17E2CBDBC869661E838F3B79@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <17E2CBDBC869661E838F3B79@PST.JCK.COM> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: