Re: [Ltru] Re: Suggested text for future compatibility of registry processors.

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

>> and so adding new fields will break strictly 4646-conformant 
>> processors
>
> I don't think so.  There is no claim in 4646 that there are no other 
> fields.  "Be liberal in what you accept" is a general IETF principle.

I would have sworn there was such a claim in 4646, but all I can find 
now is inclusionary wording in Section 3.1:

Each record MUST contain the following fields:
   o  'Type'
   o  Either 'Subtag' or 'Tag'
   o  Description
   o  Added
Each record MAY also contain the following fields:
   o  Preferred-Value
   o  Deprecated
   o  Prefix
   o  Comments
   o  Suppress-Script

implying (at least to me) that each record MAY NOT contain any other 
fields.  This may not be as strict as I interpret it, but in any case 
there is no explicit wording (unlike in draft-4646bis) that other fields 
may be added in the future and should be ignored by processors that 
don't recognize them.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru