On Mon, Apr 16, 2018, at 16:56, Gould, James wrote: > Patrick, > > You are right and I share your surprise and doubts, about both > update and transfer. update has been removed, transfer is still in the > draft.
My phrasing was poor/too quick, sorry about that. Let me try to rephrase: I was surprised and I had doubt when I first read the specification and see the use of transfer and update commands. I think that any new reader of this specification may have the same surprises and doubts on these points. We did discuss it, yes, and you removed the update, notably after Alexander review. So the case is closed for me. > I certainly don't recommend allocation via the transfer, but I'm aware > of use cases where it has been done. This is all that is needed to support its definition in the specification. > It is not the place for the > protocol to dictate the policy. If you feel that it must be removed, > please make a formal request to the list for it's removal and the list > can discuss it. I have different views but I also do not have the use cases you see in front of me so in any case my own personal opinion has no weight. As a shepherd for this document, my goal is to advance it in the IETF path now, and discussions did already take place, so I will not restart them (other participants are of course free to do it if they wish). -- Patrick Mevzek p...@dotandco.com _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
