- From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 19:16:44 -0500
- 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. Donald 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: <5.1.0.14.2.20011121134002.03ae1138@lint.cisco.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011121134002.03ae1138@lint.cisco.com> >--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