On Friday 05 October 2018 04:44 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> If there is only one instance in which this MAY be useful, perhaps there >> is no need for standardization of this extension? > If there is at least one example, there is a demonstration of existence of > utility. > > Scott
Thank you, Niels, Scott, Eliot, Adam, Andrew and Peter for bringing this up and discussing this issue. In this particular case, in addition to RFC 2026, we should also look at RFC 3735, 'Guidelines for Extending the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)', authored by Scott. It briefly discusses some criteria for which track to choose for different EPP extensions. Most pertinently, it notes that: "the intended maturity level (informational, proposed standard, etc.) largely depends on what is being extended and the amount of general interest in the extension." [1] Additionally, it says: “Extensions need not be published as Internet-Draft or RFC documents if they are intended for operation in a closed environment or are otherwise intended for a limited audience. In such cases extensions MAY be documented in a file and structural format that is appropriate for the intended audience.”[1] So, demonstration of utility and interest is an important aspect here (first for whether it should be an I-D/RFC; and if yes, with what status: informational/standard). Thank you. Gurshabad [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3735#section-2.1
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
