The consensus of the tagging committee was that
categories should be left unspecified as part of the
technical specification of a tagging infrasturcture,
with a tag registry maintained externally, and a
standard for experimental tags within the standard tagging
system. So when you are experimenting with a new
classification Foo, your tag would look like
Is-X-Foo: ...
instead of
X-Is-Foo: ...
and after the Foo classification is properly registered, software
would upgrade to
Is-Foo: ...
The points of contention in the tagging committee were over
agreement on one technique for discouraging forgery.
I refer the reader to my earlier draft of a tagging protocol
including a practical forgery discouragement method
sent to this mailing list. Given a sudden shower of tuits I
may reformat it in RFC form but no such event is expected
in the next couple months.
On 21 Apr 2006 09:11:58 -0400, John R Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com> wrote:
It may be useful to categorize messages, which would need taxonomies of
categories. The appropriate set of categories would probably depend on
what one planned to do with them, e.g., spam filtering vs. end user
filing.
Barry Leiba and Mark Delany expressed interest in this item.
--
David L Nicol
Document what you do, then do what you documented
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg