[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Registration rules for extensions

2007-04-22 15:56:07

John C Klensin wrote:
not a 2821bis problem unless we want to try redefine the
registry rules as part of 2821bis.  If anyone really wants
to go down that path, supply draft text and I'll assign an
issue number.   But I'd strongly recommend that this work
be done separately if at all.

You already have BCP 90 for trace header fields, and some
"RFC required" variant for further via and with subclauses.
You also have "standardization" for any IPvFuture "tags".  

The first registry with the extensions requires standards
track or experimental, that's IMO good enough, the old VERB
and ONEX extension is apparently a grandfathered exception.

if you ask me what I "want", we will be back to "RFC number"

Then chapter 8 "IANA considerations" is ready.  And anybody
is free to write a summary of one page in the bat book, and
submit this as an "experimental" RFC updating the registry.


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