MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155183201188.27630.13798246400958114485@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <0BE3CBAC-40EF-4162-82D0-04C638A3B429@chopps.org>
 <CABCOCHR-AROb3D1tyEgkNiP0keab_Q-K4T+iSPNwD8eg3ASG4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <sa6h8cev848.fsf@chopps.org>
In-Reply-To: <sa6h8cev848.fsf@chopps.org>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 10:48:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CABCOCHRF=ENSzcmANdZJViPsdQxjigSxbap=7+TO9xUMxU89LA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Cc: Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>, 
 General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>,
 draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags.all@ietf.org, 
 IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a0663a0583858c25"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ZpGfBSZqAGDx28_UMGe6KI6UMcM>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Genart last call review of
 draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06
Precedence: list

--000000000000a0663a0583858c25
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:42 AM Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> wrote:

>
> Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> writes:
>
> > I strongly agree that a prefix SHOULD be present, not MUST be present.
> > I also think the 3 standard prefixes will be insufficient over time.
> > (Having every organization on the planet except IETF share the prefix
> > "vendor:"
> > seems a bit short-sighted)
>
> Sounds like you are a strong supporter of the included prefixes registry
> as well then. :)
>

not really -- in my server implementation the prefix is ignored -- it is
just part of
a unique string. It is supposed to help clients create unique tags.
It is subjective whether vendor:bbf-routing is better than bbf:routing (for
example)

Andy



>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
> >
> >
> > Andy
>

--000000000000a0663a0583858c25
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:42 AM Chris=
tian Hopps &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:chopps@chopps.org">chopps@chopps.org</a>&g=
t; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0p=
x 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
Andy Bierman &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:andy@yumaworks.com" target=3D"_blank">an=
dy@yumaworks.com</a>&gt; writes:<br>
<br>
&gt; I strongly agree that a prefix SHOULD be present, not MUST be present.=
<br>
&gt; I also think the 3 standard prefixes will be insufficient over time.<b=
r>
&gt; (Having every organization on the planet except IETF share the prefix<=
br>
&gt; &quot;vendor:&quot;<br>
&gt; seems a bit short-sighted)<br>
<br>
Sounds like you are a strong supporter of the included prefixes registry as=
 well then. :)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>not really -- in my serv=
er implementation the prefix is ignored -- it is just part of</div><div>a u=
nique string. It is supposed to help clients create unique tags.</div><div>=
It is subjective whether vendor:bbf-routing is better than bbf:routing (for=
 example)</div><div><br></div><div>Andy</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</di=
v><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;borde=
r-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Chris.<br>
<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Andy<br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--000000000000a0663a0583858c25--