Re: [sip-clf] AD review: draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05

HI all, 

(as individual)

I think a registry is more future-proof. 

Peter

On 2012-02-09, at 4:01 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro wrote:

> 
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> 
>> On 02/09/2012 09:18 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>> Inline, trimming to points with responses
>> 
>> Robert: Some feedback on your responses inline.
>> 
>> With respect to extending the Transport flag, you wrote that:
>> 
>>> That's a choice the group should make - the document just needs to be
>>> explicit about what's extensible (for all the fields) and if a field
>>> is extensible, what the mechanism looks like. For the transport
>>> field, as an individual contributor, I prefer the IANA registry
>>> approach.
>> 
>> I agree that IANA is cleaner.  It will be nice if we hear more views
>> from the WG so we can proceed accordingly.
> 
> I'll weigh in that I think the IANA registration route is more elegant and practical from an extensibility point of view.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sip-clf mailing list
> sip-clf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf