IETF Logo Mail Archive

[forces] draft-ietf-forces-model-extension

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 22 October 2014 07:07 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 110C81A8AD2 for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.793
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.793 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT=1.107, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Np5Ni0uueusj for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16AC61A897B for <forces@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.160] ([84.187.40.143]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MXZ4Q-1XajMN1EcI-00WTxl; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:07:05 +0200
Message-ID: <54475790.7000609@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:06:56 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-forces-model-extension@tools.ietf.org, forces@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:VoiaxlheJtjAeDwjyBDdCLs4aZHOLwR4JLTsTPVW6k8GyhTim/B nG/zzXinSxvXL3qTO/fFdha0cOjlusNSzhW/MgfYZVd/PyI0FjieyTsJlJWbAV6bIn9j6pu N+VmJyo3/Oiu8THvj+tCU8bcvleNRQqgLfu+lPuWC1V81oNoLdliAGD/Y4uIhmz/3VPk4di etCIckTt3EYYAzlaYNDwg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/forces/PEJvjFsEBwC2ZzD-zvGa3rOqq48
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 01:59:21 -0700
Cc: Amanda Baber <amanda.baber@icann.org>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Subject: [forces] draft-ietf-forces-model-extension
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:07:41 -0000

Hi there.

I was reviewing the namespace registration and have one question.

The draft says

"The changes introduced in this memo do not alter the protocol and 
retain backward compatibility with older LFB models."

If this is the case, why is a new XML namespace even desirable?

(Other than that, I'm sort of ok with the registration, but it strikes 
me that assigning a new namespace is a very bad idea).

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email