Subject: #1032 Document changes: "text accepted"

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:19:41 +0100

No reactions to the "text proposed" in the Feb 20 ticket update.

I'm moving this to "text accepted".

The text in question was:

Suggested addition to appendix B:

   The convention to interpret subjects starting
   with the word "cmsg" as control message was removed.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:04:40 GMT

>   with the word "cmsg" as control message was removed.

I still don't understand this, but if it makes Frank happy it does no harm.

There is absolutely nothing in the text of USEFOR which relates to this
change, or would have been different if we had not made the change.

There is, of course, a substantial chunk of text in USEPRO which addresses
this change.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 19:48:10 +0100

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> if it makes Frank happy it does no harm.

Yes.  It only explains the harm for poor users getting an
obscure error message,  USEFOR is for ordinary users, and
USEPRO more for admins / implementors / gateway operators.

                         Bye, Frank

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 15:10:52 GMT

>USEPRO more for admins / implementors / gateway operators.

I don't see it that way. Either of USEFOR or USEPRO on its own is useless.
You need both in order to understand the whole system.

You could, in theory, manage without USEAGE, but you might invent some
rather useless implementations that way.

---

From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:47:10 -0500

> rather useless implementations that way.

Seems to me that people have been managing in practice without USEFOR, USEPRO,
and USEAGE.

Is it August 2005 yet?  Isn't that the current deadline to finish before
we dissolve?  Let's synchronize our watches again.

---

From: [email-masked] (Ralph Babel)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:06:38 +0100

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> Either of USEFOR or USEPRO on its own is useless.

That uncompromising all-or-nothing attitude of yours
probably accounts for most of the delays in the last
... let's see ... nine years!?

Good grief. Is that an IETF record already?

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:29:30 -0600

> Good grief. Is that an IETF record already?
I think we've got a while to go.... PKINIT took 12 years from draft to 
publication, says Aaron.....