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

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

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 04:32:40PM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >You're right, it serves little purpose.
> >
> >Rather, we need to document how the entry came about (from the
> >publication of an RFC, individual registration).
> 
> Sure.
> 
> >A way to mark an entry as obsoleted might be nice though.  Someone adds
> >GSS_Foo(), then later realizes that it should have some extra argument
> >and they register GSS_Foobar() -- it'd be nice if they could mark
> >GSS_Foo() as updated/obsoleted bu GSS_Foobar().
> 
> Indeed, "obsolete" is very useful. Adding an entry as experimental ("I 
> don't know if this is going to work, I might have to change the API 
> later on") might be useful as well.

Also, during expert review of a registration (assuming we *want* expert
review) it might be useful to have a "Proposed" status.

So I think I'll make it:

	Reference(s): none | <reference> [, <reference> ...]
	Status:	Proposed | Registered | Obsoleted
	Obsoleting reference(s): <reference> [, <reference> ...]

As for expert review, I give some guidelines.  Please review.  Reviews
should be simple and quick.

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