IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Call For Adoption: draft-nottingham-safe-hint

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 24 July 2014 13:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535951A02BE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 06:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9HIpWLFJ2eHK for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 06:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22f.google.com (mail-ig0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61C981A0299 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 06:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f175.google.com with SMTP id uq10so6436194igb.14 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 06:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LkPdJfvBXs0UWMhDHJxh9VGiyiB6hEdrbLOCFmtFV9I=; b=wP1Sj4V8v54Vcrti12HCp2aCrcjYOT6Z/71XdqjcE9UYo03sctB7rmHUIZ0X5mNIyn LBIaOW4h0upsqv9x9F/cR6JUsfO2XqAcBW3rWvoSoLJeFrrRfaEb2+bSHOrj9ycwj5io YUyoY7CK/r5r9KN0H30um/9wCL+rSn6RPrdtrrN9pYUl/XDTl3oWJu4GVF3O/TNzoHbN lkmZKVKLZFk1HQY+C3ezajreOIlNHkIcMoZrrBfwXmbR2U8A4w/5OTtNyKh17cWLZ+Qm TLaq9UncMcpDGHsZmMZKR7/A7OMkLKXl/KfnplPV65GNuwkPTMQwXyoA22VJ4voVHfex z25A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.84.76 with SMTP id k12mr12390909icl.18.1406207903644; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 06:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.43.154.80 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 06:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53D01455.6090504@cisco.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZtqm5apMhET+QSu2wsmLUWysXdsJzBsrU5oi4p0xsAEg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMBDwbfPEcrQkLKCBTNxduRci25n43F_qYJcg4UffCLDiw@mail.gmail.com> <53D01455.6090504@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:18:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMABPpOdMoi11mJ61ey0ps7e_XxyrWY0PTsoZw_S5rjzBg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf30363feb93c6af04fef04ae9"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/iy1PW6mePDg9wiESxvOZMwEAs38
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Call For Adoption: draft-nottingham-safe-hint
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:18:30 -0000

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

>  Ted,
>
>
> Being sensitive to the abuse of abuse, and mindful that I don't wish you
> to relive a miserable experience, that was 1995 and I can't actually tell
> from the above text what issues were in play at the time, and whether those
> are still applicable.  Some of the archives are lost.  Can you summarize so
> we can understand what we're in for?
>
> Eliot
>

​The short answer is that a user setting of this type creates an
expectation that amounts to a "do what I mean".  Since it becomes obvious
pretty quickly that "what I mean" means different things to different
folks, and that some of them will be very upset when their expectations are
not met, it becomes easy to persuade yourself that defining what the user
means is the right thing to do.   That moves you from the problem of
inferring everything from context into the equally intractable problem of
exhaustively defining human behavior, art, and expectation.

In short:

A single bit DWIM is useless in any reasonably large number of contexts.
A complex exploration of expressing human behavior and expectations is
impossible.

When those are the options, you should not even take up the task.

regards,

Ted

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email