On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 09:40:52AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > > But, "ietf:protocol" is in fact intended and defined to be generic, > "ietf:rfc8199-element" is not defined as generic at all. It's defined very > clearly in RFC8199. Using a broad tag "ietf:element" for such a narrow > definition is not appropriate. >
For me, ietf:element has a much more concrete definition than ietf:protocol. I can probably decide when to tag a module with ietf:element, I have much less an idea when to tag a module with ietf:protocol. But I will shut up, my concerns have been recorded in the archives, the future will tell whether we get into tagging debates or not and whether the base tags defined in the document provide a decent example for people defining more tags in the future. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
