From mark@coactus.com Wed Mar 4 11:47:26 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 792313A6D22 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:47:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 eHKaPsj8x4ID for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:47:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.29]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B11B3A6A3F for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:47:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so2923423yxm.49 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:47:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mark@coactus.com Received: by 10.150.143.12 with SMTP id q12mr717553ybd.105.1236196073595; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:47:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <136001c99605$b8ae3fc0$18af938c@lib.loc.gov> References: <20090223T171714Z_ADBF00110000@loc.gov> <136001c99605$b8ae3fc0$18af938c@lib.loc.gov> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:47:53 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: a33b26c4e88c6251 Message-ID: From: Mark Baker To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [arch-d] version numbers X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:47:26 -0000 On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: > Studying existing mime type registrations, I cannot find one in which the > issue of different possible versions of a format is taken into > consideration. > > For example, "application/xhtml+xml" is for xhtml 1.0, according to rfc 3236 > . So how does that apply to xhtml 1.1? Is the statement in the rfc that it's > for 1.0 just ignored? It's suitable for more than just 1.0, though only because 1.0 defines extensibility rules that define what the document means in the presence of extensions (although the way it does it is a bit of a mess, i.e. as UA conformance rules instead of defined document semantics). This is mentioned in 3236; With respect to XHTML Modularization [XHTMLMOD] and the existence of XHTML based languages (referred to as XHTML family members) that are not XHTML 1.0 conformant languages, it is possible that 'application/xhtml+xml' may be used to describe some of these documents. > > Clearly we don't want to be registering a mime type for every new version, > so wouldn't it be better if the registration is independent of version? It is, usually. Consider text/html and the many versions of HTML it is used with. > Could the version instead be indicated, for example by a mime parameter? No. We get this question over on ietf-types once a year or so, the most recent edition being this one; http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2009-February/002152.html Media types have an implicit versioning story that isn't widely understood, and also isn't documented, but it's quite straightforward; the media type name can be thought of as a handle that identifies a series of compatible languages, where "compatible" means roughly, in practical terms, that an old piece of software can reasonably process a new document of that language. So as long as the language evolves this way, the old media type can be reused. If it doesn't, then a new media type is required. Of course, we don't see that very often, because the cost of deploying a new media type is very high. Mark. From rden@loc.gov Wed Mar 4 11:50:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9849728C48D for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:50:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=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 ltWp1PNLxAAV for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:50:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from sun8.loc.gov (sun8.loc.gov [140.147.249.48]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92ACE28C48B for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:50:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from lsdds9qg1 (lsdds9qg1.lib.loc.gov [140.147.175.24]) by sun8.loc.gov with SMTP id n24JpNfo003270; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:51:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <074001c99d02$99317320$18af938c@lib.loc.gov> From: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" To: "Mark Baker" References: <20090223T171714Z_ADBF00110000@loc.gov> <136001c99605$b8ae3fc0$18af938c@lib.loc.gov> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:51:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [arch-d] version numbers X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:50:58 -0000 Thanks, Mark. That clears up my confusion. --Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Baker" To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [arch-d] version numbers > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress > wrote: >> Studying existing mime type registrations, I cannot find one in which the >> issue of different possible versions of a format is taken into >> consideration. >> >> For example, "application/xhtml+xml" is for xhtml 1.0, according to rfc >> 3236 >> . So how does that apply to xhtml 1.1? Is the statement in the rfc that >> it's >> for 1.0 just ignored? > > It's suitable for more than just 1.0, though only because 1.0 defines > extensibility rules that define what the document means in the > presence of extensions (although the way it does it is a bit of a > mess, i.e. as UA conformance rules instead of defined document > semantics). This is mentioned in 3236; > > With respect to XHTML Modularization [XHTMLMOD] and the existence > of XHTML based languages (referred to as XHTML family members) > that are not XHTML 1.0 conformant languages, it is possible that > 'application/xhtml+xml' may be used to describe some of these > documents. > >> >> Clearly we don't want to be registering a mime type for every new >> version, >> so wouldn't it be better if the registration is independent of version? > > It is, usually. Consider text/html and the many versions of HTML it > is used with. > >> Could the version instead be indicated, for example by a mime parameter? > > No. We get this question over on ietf-types once a year or so, the > most recent edition being this one; > > http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2009-February/002152.html > > Media types have an implicit versioning story that isn't widely > understood, and also isn't documented, but it's quite straightforward; > the media type name can be thought of as a handle that identifies a > series of compatible languages, where "compatible" means roughly, in > practical terms, that an old piece of software can reasonably process > a new document of that language. So as long as the language evolves > this way, the old media type can be reused. If it doesn't, then a new > media type is required. Of course, we don't see that very often, > because the cost of deploying a new media type is very high. > > Mark. From swb@employees.org Thu Mar 26 07:25:48 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E647A3A69CF for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:25:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.453 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.453 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.146, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 yqcRglaUbpxn for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:25:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11FC73A6856 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:25:47 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,426,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="40356838" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2009 14:26:41 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2QEQeCW002982 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:26:40 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (ssh-rtp-2.cisco.com [64.102.8.172]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2QEQejQ015509 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:26:40 GMT Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:26:40 -0700 From: Scott Brim To: architecture-discuss@ietf.org Message-ID: <20090326142640.GH22315@cisco.com> Mail-Followup-To: Scott Brim , architecture-discuss@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=swb@employees.org; dkim=neutral Subject: [arch-d] test X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:25:49 -0000 Is this thing on? From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Thu Mar 26 10:14:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 568A93A6E16 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:14:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.859, BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_FR=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 LjZwxUyvshg8 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:14:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.106]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14E4C3A6E18 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id n2QHEYFF025372 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:14:34 +0100 Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n2QHGqLK019872; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:16:53 +0100 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id n2QHEYI3010770; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:14:34 +0100 Message-ID: <49CBB7FA.5040605@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:14:34 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Brim , architecture-discuss@ietf.org References: <20090326142640.GH22315@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <20090326142640.GH22315@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [arch-d] test X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:14:01 -0000 Scott Brim a écrit : > Is this thing on? WEll yes it is, and architecture is a set of guiding principles. Architecture is more than simply a - albeit nice - picture of clouds and routers. Alex From swb@employees.org Thu Mar 26 17:44:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF7328C187 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:44:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.921 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.391, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 ZpFhRvFeXGob for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:44:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C491E28C168 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:44:51 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,429,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="32427725" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2009 00:45:45 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2R0jjeD007488; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:45:45 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (ssh-rtp-2.cisco.com [64.102.8.172]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2R0jjSQ016648; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:45:45 GMT Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:20:09 -0700 From: Scott Brim To: Alexandru Petrescu Message-ID: <20090326172009.GA31724@cisco.com> Mail-Followup-To: Scott Brim , Alexandru Petrescu , architecture-discuss@ietf.org References: <20090326142640.GH22315@cisco.com> <49CBB7FA.5040605@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <49CBB7FA.5040605@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=swb@employees.org; dkim=neutral Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [arch-d] test X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:44:52 -0000 Excerpts from Alexandru Petrescu on Thu, Mar 26, 2009 06:14:34PM +0100: > Scott Brim a écrit : >> Is this thing on? > > WEll yes it is, and architecture is a set of guiding principles. > > Architecture is more than simply a - albeit nice - picture of clouds and > routers. > > Alex I think tomorrow we'll propose using this list again, as a place to argue about the locator/identifier separation issues. For example "is a stack identifier necessary". Scott From jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 26 18:20:10 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 320613A6987 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:20:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.742 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.632, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 opSAirKpObft for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83CE83A693F for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 812016BE57F; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:21:02 -0400 (EDT) To: architecture-discuss@ietf.org Message-Id: <20090327012102.812016BE57F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:21:02 -0400 (EDT) From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: [arch-d] test X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:20:10 -0000 > From: Scott Brim > I think tomorrow we'll propose using this list again, as a place to > argue about the locator/identifier separation issues. Can we skip that step and just go directly to 'jump into a vat of boiling oil'? Noel From swb@employees.org Thu Mar 26 18:25:29 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C81F63A6986 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:25:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.454 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 HhGne-kn3lU3 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:25:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B373A69AF for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:25:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,429,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="40392382" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2009 01:26:11 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2R1QBLa025616; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:26:11 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (ssh-rtp-2.cisco.com [64.102.8.172]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2R1QBda005436; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:26:11 GMT Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:26:02 -0700 From: Scott Brim To: Noel Chiappa Message-ID: <20090327012602.GQ35107@cisco.com> Mail-Followup-To: Scott Brim , Noel Chiappa , architecture-discuss@ietf.org References: <20090327012102.812016BE57F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090327012102.812016BE57F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=swb@employees.org; dkim=neutral Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [arch-d] test X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:25:29 -0000 Excerpts from Noel Chiappa on Thu, Mar 26, 2009 09:21:02PM -0400: > > From: Scott Brim > > > I think tomorrow we'll propose using this list again, as a place to > > argue about the locator/identifier separation issues. > > Can we skip that step and just go directly to 'jump into a vat of boiling > oil'? Sure. After you. I take it you don't think it's an appropriate topic for arch-d? :-) From jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 26 18:28:53 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4CA73A6969 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:28:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.47 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 XMFa2sYdTWtt for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A95A3A6872 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 882A06BE57F; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:29:46 -0400 (EDT) To: architecture-discuss@ietf.org Message-Id: <20090327012946.882A06BE57F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:29:46 -0400 (EDT) From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: [arch-d] test X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:28:53 -0000 > From: Scott Brim > I take it you don't think it's an appropriate topic for arch-d? :-) No, it's perfectly in-scope - I'm just really tired of debating it at the moment. Give me a week or two to recover... Noel ~h