Re: [sidr] draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct to Standards Track

[Sandra Murphy <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Terry Manderson wrote:

> On 20/07/11 1:02 AM, "Sandra Murphy" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> There was a brief discussion of the use of file names extensions when the
>> repos-struct document came up for last call.  See the following messages:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02281.html
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02282.html
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02283.html
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02284.html
>>
>> To summarize: George Michaelson spoke against extensions when we were
>> considering a registry (and Terry mildly supports them), I asked George if
>
> What I said was "and hint nicely". So happy to see it as the hint. That

That's the "mildly" part.  George was speaking against file extensions at 
all, you said they had "special meaning" and were in favor of a registry.

--Sandy, explaining a former message sent when speaking as wg chair

> hasn't changed, and create a registry if you so desire. I'm still not
> comfortable in leading to a point where it is the
> way (and it seems only way) an objects validation regime is chosen.
>
> Rob's observation that the extension exists in the manifest file name is a
> close approximation provided words exist as highlighted which gives clear
> instruction to implementers as to
> 1) make the first approximation of validation regime on the filename in the
> _manifest_
> 2) then try all others
> 3) give up.
>
> T.
>
>