Re: Comments on draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-02.txt
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-02.txt
--On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:18:11 AM -0500 Nicolas Williams
<Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:10:10PM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
>> --On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:36:09 AM +0000 Alexey Melnikov
>> <alexey.melnikov at isode.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Nicolas Williams wrote:
>> >
>> >>>> | Status | 'Standards-Track', | Status of the
>> >>>> | |
>> >>>> | | 'Informational', | registration.
>> >>>> | | | 'Experimental', |
>> >>>> | | | 'Obsolete', 'Other' |
>> >>>> | | |
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>> I think you need to be more specific about what the status is. Is it
>> >>> status of the document defining the namespace registration? Or of the
>> >>> registration itself?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> The description already answers that :)
>> >>
>> > Well, in this case you need to define what
>> > 'Standards-Track','Informational', 'Experimental', 'Obsolete' and
>> > 'Other' mean.
>> > Including who determines the relevant status. With document status it
>> > is simple. With registrations that can be submitted in email, or be
>> > described in anything other than RFC, this is not clear.
>>
>> What is the purpose of assigning such a status to a registration,
>> separate from that of the specification for the registered extension?
>
> I was thinking that a Standards-Track RFC could register names that are
> experimental too, say.
>
> But, yeah, the easiest thing to do is to say that if there's an RFC,
> then the status of the entry is that of the RFC, and if there isn't then
> the status is as the expert reviewer thinks it should be: private use
> vs. <?>.
You are both missing the point.
Why does the entry need to have a status at all?
What purpose does it serve?
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
Kitten at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.