Re: INFO Framework: IANA Registry
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
OK, I agree. Eric Burger wrote: > The nightmare is the proliferation of X-mumble (e-mail), P-mumble (SIP), > g.mumble, etc., especially when the experiment becomes standard. > > I'd much rather have a registration that looks like: > > Package Name Contact Reference > keypress SIP Work Group <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > RFCYYYY > coolpackage Proprietary Co <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> none > > (where RFCYYYY is some standards track RFC) > > > > And then, someday we get > > coolpackage Proprietary Co <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> RFCZZZZ > > (where RFCZZZZ is some Informational RFC or link to a stable document) > > > The multiple tree way gives us X-coolpackage at best and > com.example.coolpackage at worst, which might make foobar.com not want > to advertise example.com. Plus the package name give us a hint to what > it does... > > > On Nov 19, 2008, at 7:16 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > >> >> >> Eric Burger wrote: >> >>> We can also have two trees, one Specification Required and one >>> Private. This has been proven to be an interoperability and marketing >>> nightmare, but I will put it out there for completeness. >> >> Can you say more? Why would it be more of a nightmare than FCFS? >> >>> I would offer we go with First Come First Served. We can have a >>> field for a reference, giving us the best of the specification >>> required (you can look up what a published specification is) and >>> Private (if you are creating a private Info Package, you do not have >>> to specify anything other than the package name). >>> Please Vote: >>> [ ] First Come First Served with pointer to optional specification >>> [ ] First Come First Served >>> [ ] Specification Required >>> [ ] Expert Review >>> [X] Two trees: Specification Required and Private >> >> IMO this is better than FCFS with pointer because it gives a higher >> degree of legitimacy to those with specifications, which provides an >> incentive to get that. >> >> But I will make FCFS w/opt spec my 2nd choice. >> >> Thanks, >> Paul > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [email protected] for questions on current sip Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip