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

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

On 11/14/2011 5:42 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
> At 4:45 PM +0800 11/14/11, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> 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,


Yes, it tries.  It was an entirely reasonable and well-intentioned, idea.  But 
in making its attempt, it created a problem.

You aren't solving that demonstrated problem.

Note that a strategically isomorphic problem is distinguishing which RFCs are 
standards.  Folks get very upset that some people think all RFCs are standards, 
but it does not actually cause serious real-world problems.  It's just 
unaesthetic.

Rather than split the structure of RFC "names" between standard and 
non-standard, we create a separate attribute for labeling some RFCs as standards.

That's the sort of thing to do in the current case.  Keep status separate from name.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net