Re: Comments on draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-02.txt

[Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com>]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:10:10PM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> --On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:36:09 AM +0000 Alexey Melnikov 
> <alexey.melnikov at isode.com> wrote:
> 
> >Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >
> >>>> | Status         | 'Standards-Track',         | Status of the       |
> >>>> |                | 'Informational',           | registration.       |
> >>>> |                | 'Experimental',            |                     |
> >>>> |                | 'Obsolete', 'Other'        |                     |
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>I think you need to be more specific about what the status is. Is it
> >>>status of the document defining the namespace registration? Or of the
> >>>registration itself?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>The description already answers that :)
> >>
> >Well, in this case you need to define what
> >'Standards-Track','Informational', 'Experimental', 'Obsolete' and
> >'Other' mean.
> >Including who determines the relevant status. With document status it is
> >simple. With registrations that can be submitted in email, or be
> >described in anything other than RFC, this is not clear.
> 
> What is the purpose of assigning such a status to a registration, separate 
> from that of the specification for the registered extension?

I was thinking that a Standards-Track RFC could register names that are
experimental too, say.

But, yeah, the easiest thing to do is to say that if there's an RFC,
then the status of the entry is that of the RFC, and if there isn't then
the status is as the expert reviewer thinks it should be: private use
vs. <?>.

Nico
-- 
_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
Kitten at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten