Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt

This doesn't look like a strong enough argument to punt this idea, at
least to me.  For example, suppose that several incarnations ago you
had a vendor extension -- let's call it

	vnd.esys.XXX

The "esys" part is registered with IANA if we choose the "register"
option, or is just grabbed by you if we choose the "punt" option.

In any case, once you've distributed software that uses this vnd tag,
you're pretty much locked in to maintaining it -- you can't really
ask client software to look for vnd.esys, vnd.simeon, vnd.execmail,
vnd.messagingdirect, and vnd.aci -- treating them all as aliases.

By the way, I notice that you still have esys.ca registered.  It
seems that if a vendor has software that uses an extension of this
type, it isn't all that hard for them to maintain the old domain name
in order to keep the namespace registered, just as you have.

I'm leaning toward reversed domain names rather than register or punt.
Register seems like it's an unneeded extra level of work, and why
punt if we can come up with a reasonable way to do this now?

Of course, one advantage of registration is that these don't
arbitrarily expire -- so if a company (for example) goes out of
business but their software is still deployed, the namespace isn't
subject to re-use.

eric


============= In Reply To: ===========================================
: From:  Lyndon Nerenberg <[email protected]>
: Subject:  Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt 
: Date:  Mon, 06 Aug 2001 09:06:15 -0600

: 
: > At today's mini-BOF, we did not discuss this issue. I'm leaning towards
: > the reversed domain name solution.
: 
: Domain names aren't stickky enough for this. We (Esys, no Simeon,
: no Execmail. Wait, make that Messagingdirect, er I _really_ meant
: ACI) are ample proof of this :-(
: 
: Would we need to (IANA) register each item, or just reserve a vendor prefix
: in the namespace?
: 
: --lyndon