Philip Guenther wrote:
Concerns about different capabilities enabling the same action or
test are better addressed, IMHO, by reexamining the naming and
review policy for the registry.
For example, perhaps we should
1) adjust the vendor namespace rules to instead be FCFS registration
of trees ("vnd.acme.*"),
2) break out a namespace for draft extensions (ala Alexey's
"X-DRAFT-[IW]#-name" proposal for IMAP extension drafts), and
3) switch the rest of the namespace from FCFS to Specification
required or IETF Consensus (c.f. RFC 2434)
I included (2) because we've had problems with extensions that saw
significant change after a long period of statis (e.g., 'notify'
and 'imapflags'), but perhaps the above is an overreaction.
Sounds good to me.