Hello Gavin,
On 18.12.25 12:24, Gavin Brown wrote:
Hi Sabrina,
These are OK to be registered, however, please change the “Document status” of
these
registrations to “Other”. This will help avoid confusion with Informational
RFCs.
Thanks for the review!
Note that I saw this status being corrected for my previous submissions and considered using "Other"
for the new ones, but then I looked at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7451.html again which says:
Document Status: The document status ("Informational", "Standards
Track", etc.) of the specification document. For documents that are
not RFCs, this will always be "Informational".
So this is no longer correct?
Please also suggest to the registrand that since multiple deployments (if not
implementations)
of these extensions exist, they should consider publishing new versions that
use namespaces that
can be shared between existing (and any future) implementations. This will make
things much
easier for client implementers. They may then submit a request to mark the old
registrations as
“inactive”.
Indeed, we'll look into this, as it will make our lives easier, too.
Thomas
--
TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® is a product of:
Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 Fax: +49 231 9703-200
D-44227 Dortmund E-Mail: [email protected]
Germany
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
