On 10/8/24 11:12, Jasdip Singh wrote:
[SAH] Yes, that's what I'm advocating for. I'd rather change the
non-conforming Proposed Standard extensions than update an Internet
Standard to validate them. Updating the Proposed Standard will be far
more disruptive than updating the optional extensions.
[JS] To Andy's disruption point, it is a balance between the extent of
grandfathering existing extensions and clarifying for the future
extensions.
[SAH] If there's a way to do that without updating Standard 95, fine.
Stick to clarifications. Keep in mind, though, that once you've
allowed a second form of extension identification (identifiers without
prefixes), you're opening up the possibility of even more extension
identification schemes. Any clarifications should attempt to eliminate
that possibility.
Scott,
Are you suggesting we acknowledge this was done in the past, but bar it
from the future? What harm do you think is being done here?
Are you also suggesting this draft foreclose on any other types of
extension? That is, if it isn't in this document or STD 95, it isn't legal?
-andy
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
