RE: Another To-Do Thought

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
> [mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net]
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 12:04 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'; brunner@nic-naa.net
> 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>?

If the thingees are shared between client and server and not part of the
base specs, but they exist as a some form of additional elements added to
the protocol, they are extensions.  I don't think the form of documentation
(I-D, RFC, proprietary document) matters, as long as there's a schema
somewhere that defines the thingee.  If a schema exists, the thingee isn't
unspecified by definition.

As I said in my original note, I don't think "unspec" conveys the real
purpose of the element.  It's a place to add extensions, and as such using
"extension" seems more appropriate.

<Scott/>