Re: IESG Evaluation of draft-ietf-pppext-vendor-protocol-01.txt

James Carlson wrote:

 > All that said, I'm not too worried about the problem.  If the simplest
 > solution is to make this Informational as well (and I think it is),
 > then that's certainly fine by me.  It's publication in a fixed form
 > that allows reference ("here's what you do if you're doing one of
 > these") that matters most to me.

Agreed.

Given this, my point below is pretty academic. But I just wanted
to respond on:

 > There's a fuzzy line here -- the mechanism for extension is itself
 > reasonably standards-track material, but any use of the mechanism
 > would (necessarily) be proprietary.  So what do you do?

Yes. I think this is perfectly normal. The escape hatch is standard,
but what happens when you go outside it is not. Most modern protocols
with potential local extension needs have a standardized way to do
it. L2TP, Diameter, ... and in many cases there has been a lot
of debate exactly how easy or hard such extensibility should be
made. Most often the extensibility has been pretty strictly
controlled.

--Jari