We've been talking for a while about revising 3864; it needs a lot more than this done.
Cheers, On 14/02/2013, at 7:54 AM, Julian Reschke <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2013-02-13 21:43, Yoav Nir wrote: >> >> On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:24 PM, Julian Reschke <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Well. >>> >>> You make it sound as if it's ok to run two different registries with partly >>> overlapping values. It's not. It's a bug in the way IANA handles this. This >>> is what needs to be fixed. >>> >>> Best regards, Julian >> >> I don't want to turn this into a process debate, but having a provisional >> registry like this allows you to create interoperable implementations while >> the document is still at draft. I often see a push to get a document >> published because we need the IANA assignments for products. > > Yes. > >> Of course they could still do this with a single registry where provisional >> entries are somehow marked (with an asterisk?). That way we wouldn't get to >> a situation where we have double entries. > > The key thing being that both registries share the same namespace, so, by > definition, an entry can not appear in both. If it does, there's a > process/software problem. > > Of course the trivial way to do this right is to implement a *single* > registry, and to just store a flag for each entry. > > Best regards, Julian > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf-message-headers mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
