Re: comments on draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-05

I think it was included at my suggestion (or at least my support).

Was it habit or compelling reason?  Somewhere between, I would say.  It 
seems that the combination of free extensibility and mandatory marking is a 
simple but effective basis for allowing evolution of a protocol.

 From distant memory, I think extensibility did figure in our requirements, 
so I'd suggest this combination is a reasonable minimum mechanism to 
satisfy that goal.  By comparison, negotiation is (or can be) an expensive 
mechanism to design -- a combination of mandatory marking and error 
reporting provides a minimum basis for adding negotiation at a later 
date.  (But we also lack error reporting... hmmm.)

#g
--

At 06:45 PM 8/27/02 -0400, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>I think this is a "style" of xml usage that was established outside of 
>PIDF and IETF. If you do a google search on it you will see that it is a 
>well established usage in SOAP, and has perhaps just been carried over out 
>of habit by people who participate in both.
>
>But if it just crept into PIDF by accident, without any compelling reason 
>for being there, I would be happy to see it go away. As Jon has mentioned, 
>it is a poor alternative to a suitable negotiation.

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<[email protected]>




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]