ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 3028bis: post-meeting changes

2006-03-22 15:05:16

Philip Guenther wrote:

3. IANA template

I think we should simply drop the "Capability name" and "Capability
arguments" fields, leaving:

The proposal from the meeting was:
Have a require capability name.
Have a short description of what an extension does.
Have separate lists for all new tests/actions/etc., so that we can avoid incompatible action/test/etc. names between multiple extensions.

  Capability keyword:
  Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number:
  Person and email address to contact for further information:

As I see it, there are two major concerns for the registry:
1) capabilities should be unique, so that require "foo" has the
   same meaning everywhere it works
2) given a standardized capability, you need to be able to find
   the current RFC describing it

Concerns about different capabilities enabling the same action or
test are better addressed, IMHO, by reexamining the naming and
review policy for the registry.

I still think have a single true place for listing all actions/tests is a good thing.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>