To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
cc:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:03:54 -0400
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:21:15 EDT." <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6C5FA2E@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Another To-Do Thought
Scott, Hmm. Assume we've a base or core or MUST spec. E.g., epp-04 et seq. Assume we've one or more extensions or MAY spec(s). E.g., beep, containers, push, data protection, et seq. Assume someone has something for which no standards-track I-D exists which normatively defines. E.g., trademark (.info registry private xml blob, any errors are mine, and copyrighted). Are r-*-private thingees <unspec>, or are they <extension>? I prefer to retain the present form of <unspec>, at least for things I don't know about, assuming all I know is in a current I-D, and eventual RFC. Eric > Would anyone care if the <unspec> element tag was changed from "unspec" to > "extension"? I think "extension" makes the real meaning much easier to > understand.