Michael Haardt wrote:
Until RFC 3028 defines the general policy that extensions are compatible
with each other unless specified otherwise, extensions are forced to do
that on their own.
IMHO, people tend to forget defaults, so saying something explicitly is
always a better thing.
IMHO formal definitions leave no room for assumptions,
but assumptions leave room for incompatibility.
Sorry for being so pedantic, but the specification is simply not complete
and I know from personal experience that it causes lots of unnecessary
and annoying work for someone writing a new implementation.
The current de-facto rule is that the latest published document should
list how the extension described in it interacts with other previously
published extensions.