Re: Comments on draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-02.txt

[Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com>]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 04:15:55PM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> >What is the purpose of assigning such a status to a registration, 
> >separate from that of the specification for the registered extension?
> 
> A registration can be specified in a non IETF document.

Exactly.

>                                                         If we don't want 
> to allow for that, then there is no practical difference.

In this case a registry offers minimal value if registration requires
RFC publication.

We're talking about an API more than about a protocol.  Implementors
already feel free to add extensions with symbol names of their choosing,
and this does not inconvenience the other implementors much *unless*
there is a naming conflict.  I don't think we'll be able to get all
implementors to publish Informational or Experimental RFCs, much less
Standards-Track RFCs before they add new functions/whatever.  Therefore
a registry that requires RFC publication will likely go unused, leaving
us with the same problem that we have today.

Nico
-- 
_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
Kitten at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten