Re: [clue] WGLC for draft-ietf-clue-protocol-10

The current section 12.4.2 in the protocol indicates that to register a 
response code "specification is required". I can't see why this cannot 
apply to extensions? Having to up the version seems to be a very high 
bar for a response code. The document already has the registration 
information so I don't see how it delays things?

Christian

On 25/01/2017 3:10 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 1/24/17 12:08 AM, Christian Groves wrote:
>
>>> We rephrased the sentence as follows:
>>>
>>> "Further response codes can be either defined in future versions of the
>>> protocol  or defined
>>> by leveraging the extension mechanism. In any case, such new response
>>> codes MUST NOT overwrite the ones here defined and they MUST
>>> respect the semantics of the first code digit.”
>>>
>>> Does this sound OK to you?
>> [CNG] I agree with Paul in that any new response code will need to be
>> registered by IANA. However I don't see the problem with having two
>> mechanisms to define codes within the protocol. It should be possible to
>> add an error code to CLUE without having to bump the version. I think if
>> you delete "(by adding them to the related IANA registry)," and add a
>> sentence along the lines of:
>> "In both cases the new response code MUST be registered with IANA".
>
> In principle that would work. But that leaves the issue of what policy 
> to use for the registry. A new version of the protocol will be 
> standards track, which is sufficient to control the registry. But IIUC 
> anybody can define an extension. I doubt we would want to make the 
> registry FCFS because the codes are a limited resource.
>
> For simplicity in the interest of getting this done I would be 
> satisfied with requiring a new version to define a new response code.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue mailing list
> clue@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue