Re: Comments on draft-peterson-rai-rfc3427bis-02.txt

From: Adam Roach <adam at nostrum.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba at hotmail.com>
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:00:37 -0500
In-reply-to: <BLU137-W35F8171C8A6FD8BCCEF35A93080 at phx.gbl>
References: <BLU137-W35F8171C8A6FD8BCCEF35A93080 at phx.gbl>

Bernard Aboba wrote:

Do all [SIP] option tags really need to be standards track?

I would argue that they do. Option tags define normative extensions tothe core SIP protocol. The prospect of defining a SIP protocol extensionin, say, an informational or historical document seems ratherill-advised. Even an experimental document is probably the wrong placeto put extensions to core SIP protocol handling.

I would feel even more uneasy about allowing non-IETF documents todefine option tags: the types of extensions that would necessitate anoptions tag usually add enough semantics to the protocol that it wouldbe foolish to condone their creation without IESG review.

/a

References:
- Comments on draft-peterson-rai-rfc3427bis-02.txt
  - From: Bernard Aboba

Prev by Date: Nomcom 2009-2010: Call for Nominations
Next by Date: Re: 2nd Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP
Previous by thread: Re: Comments on draft-peterson-rai-rfc3427bis-02.txt
Next by thread: Re: [74attendees] [75attendees] IETF74 T-Shirt Art Donated to IETF Trust
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: Comments on draft-peterson-rai-rfc3427bis-02.txt

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.