Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

At 4:45 PM +0800 11/14/11, Dave CROCKER wrote:

>  On 11/14/2011 4:11 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>>  At 1:56 PM +0800 11/14/11, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>>  I think the essence of what you've cited is that the later 
>>> process produces a
>>>  revised specification. Hence, what is produced is not the same thing as was
>>>  getting used. Unfortunately the implication is a practise of 
>>> re-using the name
>>>  without any version indication, which is generally frowned upon, protocol
>>>  technique-wise...
>>
>>  Right, but the answer, I think, is to use a different name for the 
>> standardized
>>  version, not to do away with wider review.
>
>  +1
>
>  (but for clarity:  I, for one, hadn't called for doing away with 
> wider review.)

The current model, with all its flaws, does try to distinguish 
between ad-hoc parameters that anyone can just start using, with no 
review, and standard ones, that have been through wider review.  To 
move to a model that does away with this distinction seems to 
encourage more use of ad-hoc parameters that have not been through 
wide review.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Sorry, no obscene fortunes.  Don't want to offend anyone.
(Now that's obscene!)