RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #1072] compatibility and private use tags

Hi JFC,

As you write yourself, the "C" in "BCP" stands for "Current".
By no stretch of the imagination can your proposal (whatever 
its merits or demerits) be described as current practice, 
hence it is not a candidate for a BCP.  I suggest that you 
follow the path I proposed in my earlier mail.  Then, when 
work starts on RFC 3066ter, you can argue that your scheme 
should be incorporated.

To anticipate any argument that the current drafts also do 
not represent current practice, I say in advance that these 
drafts clarify what is widely deployed today.  You have 
argued that existing deployment should not act as a barrier 
to adoption of your scheme.  That argument is not compatible 
with the letter "C" in BCP.

You could propose that RFC 3066bis should state (in order to 
give implementors time to prepare for such changes) that it 
is anticipated that RFC 3066ter will relax some of the 
existing constraints (eg the 8-char limit).  W3C specs often 
do this: ie in version N+1 they give notice that it is 
anticipated that particular version N features will be dropped 
in version N+2.

Misha

-----------------------------------------------------------------
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit http://www.reuters.com/productinfo 

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru