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

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

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.)


>>> I can't help but think that we'd be better off with a middle ground, similar to
>>> "vnd." namespace, for ad-hoc parameters that might or might not be standardized,
>>> but that clearly have not been through IETF consensus.
>>
>> Yuch.
>
> Why?

because it really is perpetuated essentially the same model that we are trying 
to do away with.


> But it would improve some of the problems of that model, and avoid some of the
> problems with just abandoning the model entirely.

or it wouldn't.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net