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

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>]

Nicolas Williams wrote:

>On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 04:15:55PM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>  
>
>>If we don't want 
>>to allow for that, then there is no practical difference.
>>    
>>
>In this case a registry offers minimal value if registration requires
>RFC publication.
>
>We're talking about an API more than about a protocol.  Implementors
>already feel free to add extensions with symbol names of their choosing,
>and this does not inconvenience the other implementors much *unless*
>there is a naming conflict.  I don't think we'll be able to get all
>implementors to publish Informational or Experimental RFCs, much less
>Standards-Track RFCs before they add new functions/whatever.
>
This is my fear as well.

>Therefore
>a registry that requires RFC publication will likely go unused, leaving
>us with the same problem that we have today.
>  
>
Agreed.

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