Works for me: I had suggested “proprietary”, so I will now unsuggest it. Authors, sorry about that: please remove that word in both places the next time you make a revision. Thanks.
Barry On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 1:29 PM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote: > On 13 Oct 2019, at 7:25, Barry Leiba wrote: > > >> The Abstract ans Section 1 say: "This is a non-standard proprietary > >> extension." I understand that this is not a standards track document, > >> so > >> the "non-standard" part makes sense. However, what is the point of > >> publishing a "proprietary" extension as an RFC. I would hope that > >> interoperable implementations is the goal of publication. > > > > I’m afraid this addition is my fault. Perhaps “proprietary” is > > the wrong > > word here: The point is that this is documenting an extension > > developed by > > one registry and not in use by others, with the idea that if others > > want to > > use it they can follow this to interoperable. It’s rather like when > > we > > documented Apple Bonjour as Informational. > > > > Better word? > > Why have any word other than "non-standard"? It is *not* proprietary in > that multiple vendors implement it and there appears to be no licensing > requirement from the authors. > > --Paul Hoffman >
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
