ginal message ----
>> From: Christian Hopps mailto:cho...@chopps.org>>
>> Date: 06/03/2019 22:55 (GMT+00:00)
>> To: Elwyn Davies mailto:elw...@dial.pipex.com>>
>> Cc: gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>, Christian Hopps
>> mailto:cho.
I will move this reference to normative, I was confused.
Thanks,
Chris.
Benjamin Kaduk writes:
Going up to a more general topic (and ignoring the particulars here):
On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 05:50:00PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
Thanks for the review! Comments inline.
> On Mar 5, 2019, a
Going up to a more general topic (and ignoring the particulars here):
On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 05:50:00PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
> Thanks for the review! Comments inline.
>
> > On Mar 5, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Minor issues:
> > Abs
the 3 references?
Thanks,
Chris.
>
> Cheers,
> Elwyn
>
> Sent from Samsung tablet.
>
> Original message
> From: Christian Hopps
> Date: 06/03/2019 22:55 (GMT+00:00)
> To: Elwyn Davies
> Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, Christian Hopps ,
> draft-ietf-
[to this thread in general, not anyone in particular]
We have done this work over 2 years in the working group. It has been presented
multiple times with multiple revisions etc. We have arrived at a solution that
works, and has cleared WG LC, and IETF LC.
We have a process we need to follow it.
In that case, why not make it so the tags are actually valid URIs, similar to
XML namespaces?
From: netmod on behalf of William Lupton
Sent: Friday, 8 March 2019 7:37 a.m.
To: Andy Bierman
Cc: Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies; IETF discussion list; NetMod
: 06/03/2019 22:55 (GMT+00:00) To: Elwyn Davies
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, Christian Hopps ,
draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags@ietf.org, "" ,
net...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [netmod] Genart last call review of
draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06 [I covered this in the previous repl
On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 02:02:39PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> We already have a reviewed and approved prefixes registry.
>
> Given nothing is broken here, and the current solution has been reviewed for
> 2+ years, and with careful consideration approved by the working group, this
> does
We already have a reviewed and approved prefixes registry.
Given nothing is broken here, and the current solution has been reviewed for 2+
years, and with careful consideration approved by the working group, this does
not seem like change that should be considered (or perhaps even suggested) a
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:42 AM Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Andy Bierman writes:
>
> > I strongly agree that a prefix SHOULD be present, not MUST be present.
> > I also think the 3 standard prefixes will be insufficient over time.
> > (Having every organization on the planet except IETF share the
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:37 AM William Lupton
wrote:
> This remark might be out of context (I haven't been following the details)
> but this reference to prefixes makes me wonder whether there's any way that
> registered URN namespaces could be regarded as valid prefixes.
> https://www.iana.org/
Andy Bierman writes:
I strongly agree that a prefix SHOULD be present, not MUST be present.
I also think the 3 standard prefixes will be insufficient over time.
(Having every organization on the planet except IETF share the prefix
"vendor:"
seems a bit short-sighted)
Sounds like you are a st
This remark might be out of context (I haven't been following the details)
but this reference to prefixes makes me wonder whether there's any way that
registered URN namespaces could be regarded as valid prefixes.
https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml
On Thu, 7 Mar 2
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 2:51 PM Christian Hopps wrote:
> Thanks for the review! Comments inline.
>
> > On Mar 5, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies <
> ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> > Review result: Almost Ready
> >
>
> > If I re
[I covered this in the previous reply I just sent, and updated the model text
in response too..]
The intent here is to not restrict users of tags where we don't have to. The
prefix is only intended to avoid collision between disconnected groups
(designers, implementers and users), since users a
Thanks for the review! Comments inline.
> On Mar 5, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review result: Almost Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documen
16 matches
Mail list logo
