Agreed
I do not see separate mileage in separate vendor trees. They only work
to me if we can grandfather some package off another package.
Keith
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Eric Burger
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 1:53 AM
To: Paul Kyzivat
Cc: SIP List
Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO Framework: IANA Registry
The nightmare is the proliferation of X-mumble (e-mail),
P-mumble (SIP), g.mumble, etc., especially when the experiment becomes
standard.
I'd much rather have a registration that looks like:
Package Name Contact Reference
keypress SIP Work Group <[email protected]> RFCYYYY
coolpackage Proprietary Co <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> none
(where RFCYYYY is some standards track RFC)
And then, someday we get
coolpackage Proprietary Co <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> RFCZZZZ
(where RFCZZZZ is some Informational RFC or link to a stable
document)
The multiple tree way gives us X-coolpackage at best and
com.example.coolpackage at worst, which might make foobar.com not want
to advertise example.com. Plus the package name give us a hint to what
it does...
On Nov 19, 2008, at 7:16 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
Eric Burger wrote:
We can also have two trees, one Specification
Required and one Private. This has been proven to be an interoperability
and marketing nightmare, but I will put it out there for completeness.
Can you say more? Why would it be more of a nightmare
than FCFS?
I would offer we go with First Come First
Served. We can have a field for a reference, giving us the best of the
specification required (you can look up what a published specification
is) and Private (if you are creating a private Info Package, you do not
have to specify anything other than the package name).
Please Vote:
[ ] First Come First Served with pointer to
optional specification
[ ] First Come First Served
[ ] Specification Required
[ ] Expert Review
[X] Two trees: Specification Required and
Private
IMO this is better than FCFS with pointer because it
gives a higher degree of legitimacy to those with specifications, which
provides an incentive to get that.
But I will make FCFS w/opt spec my 2nd choice.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
