I see the split as between "standardized" and "informational",
where I'd like to be able to find information on headers I see in the
wild that aren't standardized and likely should be shunned.
Sam
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 09:29:17AM -0800, Dave Crocker
<dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com> wrote:
At 04:36 PM 2/21/2002 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:
The main change is a refactoring into a permanent registry and a
provisional repository.
The split into two categories seems like an especially helpful change,
given the concerns that have been expressed.
I think that consideration of the split can divide into two different
levels. One is the nature of the distinction between the two categories
and the other is the detailed rules for each.
The 'nature' of the proposed distinction is temporal: -- permanent versus
temporary. Over the course of the IETF's history, I think that the
pragmatics of temporariness has tended to prove to be elusive, misleading
or wrong.
My sense of the major focus of concern in the current discussion is between
official, formal, standardized reservations, versus those that are outside
of such processes. That is, the focus is about the authority behind
specific entries. The ones that are not part of the public, offical,
formal world are private or proprietary.
So, separate from the fine-grained details, I would like to propose that
the split be between Standardized vs. Proprietary.
--
Sam Roberts <sroberts(_at_)certicom(_dot_)com>