<personal hat on>
Yes, I have to be careful about expressing both my personal opinions and
process opinions. Hopefully I've been succeeding at doing that.
Personally, I think it would be very useful and important to get an
extension I-D written up for this case. That's why I said previously "I
could easily see an extension I-D being written that defines and blesses
its usage. So I wouldn't want to deny its possibility within 2821bis."
This can be translated as: don't do anything now that would prevent such
an extension from being written.
</personal hat on>
<pseudo chair hat on>
However, doing it as part of 2821bis is improper. It really is
specifying a new response code and could cause a potential restart at
Proposed Standard. And *that* would be bad.
</pseudo chair hat on>
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Hector Santos wrote:
Oh sorry. I thought I was approaching it as a clarification and not
really introducing any new functionality per se, i.e. simply fitting
what already exist hence why in the field it seems to work.
You said it yourself with your former opes chair hat on:
The OPES team looked long and hard for a way to break out
of the timeout situation and the "150-" situation really was
the best solution to get proposed, and it actually seemed
to work with current existing servers.
and added:
I'm not suggesting that this use be blessed within 2821bis.
However, I could easily see an extension I-D being written
that defines and blesses its usage. So I wouldn't want to deny
its possibility within 2821bis. I guess I'm falling into the
(ii) camp here.
But if with your 2821bis pseudo-chair hat on now feels it still make it
out of scope, then I throw up my hands.