Re: IESG Evaluation of draft-ietf-pppext-vendor-protocol-01.txt
James Carlson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Jari Arkko writes:
> > 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.
Right, and it was on this point ("standard support of non-standard
bits") that I asked to hear if there were any IESG direction or
policies, since I suspect that others have seen advancement issues
here. It'd be really nice if all the protocols needing to provide
such features did it in a similar way.
--
James Carlson, IP Systems Group <[email protected]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.234W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.497N Fax +1 781 442 1677