RE: lastVerified: optional vs. extension

[Hong Liu <lhongsms@yahoo.com>]

I concur with Scott's observation. I would say that
extension seems to be the way to go for lastVerified.

--- "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
wrote:
> > Here's my metric:
> > 
> > Make it optional if
> > 1) Everyone that will want to use it will do so in
> the same way and 
> > can agree on the syntax.
> > 2) Everyone will want to be able to make use of it
> at some point - 
> > even if not regularly.
> > 3) It's worth making a change to the core
> documents for this.
> 
> I don't think syntax is a problem, but based on the
> discussion so far I
> don't think we've met the "Everyone that will want
> to use it will do so in
> the same way" or "Everyone will want to be able to
> make use of it at some
> point" metrics.
> 

agree.

> > Make it an extension if
> > 1) Not everyone agrees on what is should look like
> or how it 
> > should be used.
> > 2) Not everyone will want the ability to make use
> of it.
> > Note that there is no #3 (would have been - it can
> be an extension 
> > after the core specs are at PS).  I won't say this
> because I refuse 
> > to consider extensions to a protocol that hasn't
> hit PS yet.
> 
> Both of these loom large based on the discussion so
> far.
> 

Agree. This is evident from the discussions so far.

> -Scott-


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com