Albert Mietus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know, we are describing the current use. But we can easily extent it,
> as long as we don't break anything.
For what it's worth, my experience with IETF standards is that the above
statement, however innocuous-sounding as it may appear at first, can turn
into a gaping maw of energy-devouring blackness that can be very difficult
to climb back out of again.
> To structer the new ones, I suggest to code the diggits, like e.g. the
> errorcodes in several other protocols
> So the list of facilities becomes:
As a matter of administrative structure, the standardish IETF way to
handle something like this is to ask IANA to set up a registry of protocol
numbers. Hard-coding meanings into a protocol is okay iff the meanings
are directly related to the protocol in some fashion (like error codes in
e-mail), but when you get into separating the fields of human endeavor in
software into separate numeric codes, I think you've really got an IANA
registry wanting to happen.
(It's unclear to me that it's worth solving this problem, for the record,
but if you do, a table in an RFC probably isn't the right way to solve
it.)
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
