Re: Standard Extensions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 6:59 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [provreg] Standard Extensions
> 
> Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> 2012-01-19 13:18
> > Having said that, maybe it makes sense to create a standard extension
> for additional result codes and status values.
> 
> I believe so.
> 
> And then, if you make it happen that everyone switch from their
> current homegrown version to this extension, you may find out that all
> registries or almost all of them need this extension, which in a way
> shows that the feature should be in the core protocol.
> But things will technically work out the same way while in an
> extension.
> 
> *If* everyone switches to it.
> 
> Which I'm far to believe.

I'm with you on the switching part, but I'm not convinced that there really is significant demand. How many registries are using custom result codes and status values?

Scott
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg