RE: IESG comments on draft-ietf-vpim-hint

> In my opinion ability to extend Message-Context with new values is
> imperative.

The IESG isn't suggesting that extensions not be possible. The IESG is only
suggesting that there has to be some accountability for the extensions that are
created in order for this mechanism to have any chance of interoperating.

> Would the following suggestion be consistent with IESG view?

> 1) Allow x-message-context tags for proprietry implementations

Given the incredibly poor history of x- tags in other protocols I see no chance
the IESG will buy into this. Heck, I didn't have a problem personally with
vendor-specific tags, but I have a big problem with x- tags.

This also begs the question of why, since coding support for a new sort of
message in a client is unquestionably a significant undertaking, writing a
short description of it is seen as so onerous.

> 2) Allow registering new message-contexts by issues new RFC.

					Ned
----------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent to you, since you are subscribed to
[email protected]. You can manage your subscription at
http://www.neystadt.org/cgi-bin/majordomo