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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 1/23/17 4:00 AM, Simon Pietro Romano wrote:

> We rephrased the sentence as follows:
>
> "Further response codes can be either defined in future versions of the
> protocol (by adding them to the related IANA registry), 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?

I don't see how having two different mechanisms for defining new 
response codes can work.

If a new response code is defined in an extension, and thus doesn't 
update the registry, then what is to prevent that code from being reused 
in a conflicting way? Considering that (IIUC) extensions don't need to 
be registered with the IETF it seems entirely possible that somebody 
defining a new one might not be aware of another that used the same new 
response code.

So, ISTM that new response codes will always need to be registered with 
IANA, and we will thus need a suitable approval mechanism for that.

	Thanks,
	Paul