Re: Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Works for me: I had suggested “proprietary”, so I will now unsuggest it.
Authors, sorry about that: please remove that word in both places the next
time you make a revision.  Thanks.

Barry

On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 1:29 PM Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 13 Oct 2019, at 7:25, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
> >> The Abstract ans Section 1 say: "This is a non-standard proprietary
> >> extension." I understand that this is not a standards track document,
> >> so
> >> the "non-standard" part makes sense.  However, what is the point of
> >> publishing a "proprietary" extension as an RFC.  I would hope that
> >> interoperable implementations is the goal of publication.
> >
> > I’m afraid this addition is my fault.  Perhaps “proprietary” is
> > the wrong
> > word here: The point is that this is documenting an extension
> > developed by
> > one registry and not in use by others, with the idea that if others
> > want to
> > use it they can follow this to interoperable.  It’s rather like when
> > we
> > documented Apple Bonjour as Informational.
> >
> > Better word?
>
> Why have any word other than "non-standard"? It is *not* proprietary in
> that multiple vendors implement it and there appears to be no licensing
> requirement from the authors.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>