On 11/24/10 3:49 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Nov 24, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
While section 2.3 of draft-iab-extension-recs-02 can be read as very vaguely pointing
away from this kind of extension ("[S]pecifications that look very similar to the
original but don't interoperate with each other or with the original - are even more
harmful to interoperability than extensions"), it appears to be aimed more squarely
at the creation of protocol profiles by SDOs other than the IETF.
well, we could discuss the use of an IETF session setup protocol for instant
messaging, and the use of a protocol designed to add attributes and report on
available bandwidth within a class of traffic on a standard (eg, calculated by
a routing protocol) route to install a route. We do it to ourselves as well.
So, without agreeing or disagreeing with your examples: that's all
rather orthogonal to what I was suggesting in my original message. The
point I was trying to make is that there is a highly relevant open issue
under discussion in the RAI area right now. That discussion would
benefit greatly from general architectural guidance. The present IAB
recommendation does not address this class of issue unambiguously.
/a
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf