W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > November 2001


From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 19:16:44 -0500
Message-Id: <200111230016.TAA0000000864@torque.pothole.com>
To: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, discuss@apps.ietf.org

I don't see it as standardizing a practice but just allocating an
identifier for an already standard protocol. Like it or not, people
want to be able to express everything that they reasonably (or
sometimes unreasonably) can as a URI. If an identifier is not
officially allocated, some proprietary identifier or incompatible set
of identifiers or bizarre non-URI syntax will be used when someone
wants to refer to TFTP in not just a configuration file but any sort
of meta-discourse.


From:  John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
Date:  Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:47:37 -0500
To:  Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
cc:  discuss@apps.ietf.org
Message-ID:  <9925872.1006364857@localhost>
In-Reply-To:  <>
References:   <>

>--On Wednesday, 21 November, 2001 13:40 -0800 Eliot Lear
><lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>> I'm a little concerned that the cat is out of the bag, and
>> that we are now running up against documenting existing
>> practice (even if it is a bad practice).  I quite agree that
>> people should avoid using TFTP (and there's really no reason
>> not to).
>I don't have much objection to documenting some widely-used
>existing practice, if only to to explain why it is undesirable/
>implies risks.   But I don't think we should _standardize_
>risky/ problematic practices.
>   john
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2001 19:21:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:01 UTC