On 10/9/24 12:02, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
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?
*/[SAH] If we allow every extension to create it’s own rules about how
that extension is identified, we’re adding unnecessary complication to
the protocol. I’d very much prefer that we define one way to identify
an extension, and yes, bar anything else./*
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?
*/[SAH] Isn’t that what standards compliance is all about? Why create
standards if implementers are free to ignore them?/*
*/Scott/*
I think they are about interoperability, not prohibition.
So you are saying that if somebody comes up with an RDAP extension,
perhaps one from the HTTP API wg such
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers/,
that they should be forbidden from registering it?
-andy
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
