> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 6:48 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > I believe my implementors have implemented History-Info. > I believe my implementors have implemented Diversion. > They have implemented interworking between the two. > Assuming you use my implementations as reference implementations and > document exactly what they do, and nothing else, I have no problem with > proceeding with this work. > Other people may however have a problem with that approach, but I am quite > happy to ignore them.
Sounds fine by me. Document what you've done for H-I <-> Div. If we don't all agree with it, we can argue about it before it becomes an RFC and potentially make changes. You can ignore those changes, as you can for any RFC, but my guess is your customers will force/demand you to change your implementation to comply with an RFC over your current proprietary interworking. If we don't define and publish an RFC, the customers will have no reference document to point to, to make you comply with, and you and everyone else will continue to have proprietary interworking implementations. One of the reasons I come to the IETF is to avoid that latter scenario. I'm not quite sure why others come, but my guess is it's something similar. -hadriel _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
