At 09.46 -0500 02-02-08, Keith Moore wrote:
5. at the end of the review period a designated expert makes one
of a small number of recommendations:
- field is believed to be non-disruptive and okay for
experimental use, or
- field is insufficiently documented, or
- revision based on review feedback is required, or
- IETF consensus is required before this field can be registered
6. "in the wild" observations are maintained separately, and
perhaps, automatically. these are submitted via an emailed
web form. submission of the form causes an automatic reply
to the email address that submitted the form; the sender must
confirm sending the observation before it will be accepted.
A user should be able to search for items in both data bases
with a single search request, or there should be a list
of all the header names in both data bases in a single
alphabetical listing.
How should synonyms be handled? An example is "Obsoletes",
"Supersedes" and "Revision-Of". Note that they are not
exactly synonyms. "Supersedes" as presently mostly implemented
causes a deletion of the previous message and replacement
with the new text. "Obsoletes" is just a link between
old and new versions, technically similar to "In-Reply-To".
It should at least be able to store links between such
partial synonyms, a registration of "Supersedes" could
contain a field "See also: Obsoletes, Revision-Of".
--
Jacob Palme <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/