On 05.10.18 14:08, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> We might disagree here. If there is one place in which this extension
> might be useful, I am not sure whether standardization is appropriate
> because there is only one (potential) implementation.
Again, not required (albeit desirable). RFC 2026 st
On 05.10.18 14:05, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> On 10/05/2018 01:55 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> I take no position on the HR issues of this draft. However:
>>
>>
>>> If there is only one instance in which this MAY be useful, perhaps there
>>> is no nee
I take no position on the HR issues of this draft. However:
> If there is only one instance in which this MAY be useful, perhaps there
> is no need for standardization of this extension?
>
Not the way we do business. We ask this question on the front end of
the process, not the back end. That
