Martin Rex wrote:
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbar...@bbn.com]
Seems like it depends on your definitions of abusive and
legitimate. Do you have an example?
For a contrived example, let's say a registered HTTP header field
that's only ever found to be present in
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 02:56:41PM -0800, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
We like to see interoperability reports contain information about
features of a protocol that are used vs. unused, so that if and when
the protocol seeks advancement along the standards track, we can
decide whether we want to
-Original Message-
From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbar...@bbn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 5:45 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: A nuance of interoperability reports
Seems like it depends on your definitions of abusive and
legitimate. Do you have
i think what richard was trying to hint is that the same tool can be
used for both good and bad. and we can't predict that, just because it
has been used for bad yesteday, it will not be used for good in the rosy
future.
randy
___
Ietf mailing list
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 08:32:05 PM Randy Bush wrote:
i think what richard was trying to hint is that the same tool can be
used for both good and bad. and we can't predict that, just because it
has been used for bad yesteday, it will not be used for good in the rosy
future.
Yes, but
i think what richard was trying to hint is that the same tool can be
used for both good and bad. and we can't predict that, just because
it has been used for bad yesteday, it will not be used for good in
the rosy future.
Yes, but the same argument can be made about unused features. Just
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbar...@bbn.com]
Seems like it depends on your definitions of abusive and
legitimate. Do you have an example?
For a contrived example, let's say a registered HTTP header field
that's only ever found to be present in web pages
We like to see interoperability reports contain information about features of a
protocol that are used vs. unused, so that if and when the protocol seeks
advancement along the standards track, we can decide whether we want to keep it
in the revision.
Should we consider a protocol feature only
Seems like it depends on your definitions of abusive and legitimate. Do
you have an example?
On Feb 21, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
We like to see interoperability reports contain information about features of
a protocol that are used vs. unused, so that if and when the
