Re: IMPORTANT: WG Last Call on NodeArchitecture Key changes

As far as I can remember the reason we adopted the XYZ scheme is to 
clearly idetify keys as being part of the (explained in) RFC3720 or 
explained in some other document.
In view of this David's proposal is in line with what we had in mind.

Julo



Lars Eggert <[email protected]> 
20/10/06 09:26

To
William Studenmund <[email protected]>
cc
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject
Re: [Ips] IMPORTANT: WG Last Call on NodeArchitecture Key changes






On Oct 16, 2006, at 21:36, William Studenmund wrote:
> My thought when we did this was that if a key was going to be a 
> proposed standard, we would not use the [XYZ]# space for it.
>
> So rather than changing the text, why not just make the key 
> "NodeArchitecture"? :-) My understanding is that existing 
> implementations will (should?) react the same way to such a key as 
> they would to X#NodeArchitecture (NotUnderstood), so we don't have 
> an interoperation issue.
>
> If the group wants to stick with X#, I am not opposed to changing 
> the text.

I *would* like to see this document go to PS. If the WG comes to 
consensus on either David's or your proposal, that'd be fine with me.

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories


_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips