Since we are down to only this one comment we can just top-reply :)

The reason we are using this syntactic structure is because that is what 
implementers of MRCPv1 are already used to.  It is a convenient way to 
distinguish among different vendors' parameters.

However, the registry is to ensure there are no conflicts.  Merely recommending 
that vendors use a particular syntax does not ensure that they will do so.  A 
(public) registry does, at least insofar as making it public when they violate 
the recommendation.

-- dan


On Oct 31, 2011, at 4:54 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:

> Hi Dan.
> 
> First, I believe I agree with all your previous comments. Thanks for 
> addressing it.
> 
> Now, back to this comment related to the IANA registration. See below.
> 
> On 31/10/2011 2:20, Dan Burnett wrote:
>> I have removed all but one of your comments below.  This comment had
>> not yet been addressed.  With this reply I believe I have addressed
>> all of your comments.  If you find that I have missed one please let
>> me know.
>> 
>> -- dan
>> 
>> On May 3, 2011, at 2:39 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> - Section 13.1.6 describes a mechanism where vendor-specific
>>> extensions use the reverse DNS mechanism, for example.,
>>> "com.example.foo". Then, if the vendor-specific extension is
>>> connected to DNS to avoid clashes in names, why is there a need for
>>> an expert review policy prior to its registration? I see a
>>> contradiction in having a self-managing registry by avoiding
>>> clashes due to the connection to DNS, and then having anything else
>>> than a volunteer registry.
>>> 
>> 
>> In the next draft I will replace "Expert Review" with "First Come
>> First Served".
> 
> This does not solve my concern. My concerns is why do you need at the same 
> time:
> 
> a) a self-managed registry, by linking reversed DNS names to features
> 
> b) an IANA-controlled registry.
> 
> There is a redundancy here. The goal of both is to avoid clashes of different 
> features with the same name. If you need an IANA registry, then features do 
> not need to be linked with their DNS names. If you need a reversed DNS names 
> for the features, then their names are self-managed and need not be 
> maintained by IANA. 
> 
> So, I still do not understand what you are trying to achieve.
> 
> BR,
> 
>      Miguel
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Miguel A. Garcia
> +34-91-339-3608
> Ericsson Spain

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to