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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

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