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

["Haleplidis Evangelos" <[e-mail]>]

Greetings Julian,

Thanks for agreeing with the text. The text was actually a suggestion by
Joel.
So, just a quick question. I guess that I shouldn't update the draft as it
is after RFC editor editing and into IANA hands.
In order to move forward with the document, do you mind if I add the text at
the AUTH48 state? Or should I ping the RFC editor (or the one holding the
pen right now) to add it? 

Regards,
Evangelos.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 10:05 PM
> To: Haleplidis Evangelos; 'Joel'; 'Jamal Hadi Salim'
> Cc: 'Amanda Baber'; [e-mail]; 'Graham Klyne'; draft-ietf-forces-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [forces] draft-ietf-forces-model-extension
> 
> On 2014-10-27 20:59, Haleplidis Evangelos wrote:
> > Greetings Julian,
> >
> > Apologies for the late reply.
> >
> > As Jamal and Joel both noted, the model does not affect the protocol
> at all.
> >
> > The change of the namespace was suggested by Adrian during his AD
> > review
> > (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/current/msg04837.html)
> > which I agreed to. I am more comfortable with keeping the new
> > namespace as that will clearly specify that extensions are expected.
> >
> > Now, how about if we added the following text in the document. Would
> > that address your concerns?
> >
> > "The extensions described in this document, are backwards compatible
> > in terms of the operation of the ForCES protocol.  In terms of the
> > XML, any definitions that were valid under the old name space are
> > valid under the new namespace.  It is to be noted that any auxiliary
> > tools that are processing xml definitions written under both
> > namespaces will need to be able to understand both."
> >
> > Regards,
> > Evangelos Haleplidis.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> that's indeed an improvement. Go ahead!
> 
> Best regards, Julian