On Tue Sep 14 12:21:04 2010, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Aug 17 20:37:16 2010, John C Klensin wrote:
(1) Why not go all the way: rename the registry to something
more neutral that avoids "ACAP", update the two newer protocol
specifications to point to the new registry, and advise IANA to
include "(formerly 'ACAP Vendor Registry')" in the newly-renamed
registry and to index it both ways? I note that the ACAP
document does not specify a name for that registry or calls it
"ACAP vendor subtree" (RFC 2244, Section 7.4) not "ACAP vendor
registry", so the current name is already the result of an
administrative procedure, not an RFC requirement.
Well, it's a registry of vendor names, or at least name-tokens, but
retaining the "ACAP" name in the name of the registry is mostly a
nod to history. It's the least of our historical warts, I think.
Also, the draft doesn't actually rename it - it's referred to
throughout as the ACAP Vendor Subtrees Registry. Even the subject
line of the IANA registration template says as much.
The only place it's shorthanded to "vendor registry" is in the draft
filename, and the abstract and introduction - I'll correct the latter
two, and also the title of §3, which lacks the "ACAP", when I correct
the name-char production error you noted.
I also noticed an extraneous 's' in the title of the document itself.
IANA actually refers to as "Vendor Subtrees", but places it on their
"ACAP Registrations" page.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net -
xmpp:dwd(_at_)dave(_dot_)cridland(_dot_)net
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf