Re: Standard Extensions
Patrik Fältström <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 23 aug 2012, at 06:14, Kevin Tse <[email protected]> wrote: > We have several private extensions which are not summited as rfc > drafts and some extensions which are summited as rfc drafts. Btw, I do not as registrar care much whether extensions are RFCs or not, but whether extensions are actually implemented by all(!) registries, and whether I can communicate with a specific registry without implementing the extensions that registry support. I already see registries that require extensions (compared to registries that have features that are optional implemented as extensions) do not end up being as popular among registrars as other registries. So, I want to see registries harmonize their implementations. Talk with each other. Coordinate. Have someone say "we have a cool extension, but we will not implement this before we have ten other registries also agreeing to implementing it". Patrik _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg