To:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>
Cc:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Date:
Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:43:04 -0800
In-Reply-To:
<v03130302b8a09761551c@[208.58.216.184]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Call for agenda items for Minneapolis
At 08:45 PM 2/25/2002 -0500, Edward Lewis wrote: >Hmmmm. I am unsure of this but I think the WG is permitted to review >extenstions that benefit a minority of of users (in this case, specifically >registries). This would demontrate the "extensibility" of the base and >encourage safe extenstions. For a protocol expected to be used in many environments that will want local tailoring, there is quite a bit of benefit in considering specific, local efforts for just the reason you cite, namely to ensure that local extensions are not overly painful. And as Eric notes, the WG should keep an eagle eye out, looking for kernels of generality to folk into the base protocol. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; (new)fax +1.408.850.1850