Subject: [Ltru] [psg.com #1099] WGLC add empty extension registry

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:29:11 -0700

Hi -

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Issue raised in messages
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03195.html
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03202.html
>

Kent and Doug have commented on the omission of the initial (empty)
extension registry.  Doug has made a proposal for its content.  Are
there any objections to adding this material to the initial registry
i-d?

Randy, ltru co-chair

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 19:33:41 +0200

Randy Presuhn wrote:

> any objections

No.

If I got it right it doesn't need dummy entries for i- or x-

The old i- is only used to start grandfathered tags, never as
extension,  x- is explained in the core document, and formally
it's also no extension tag.  BTW, apparently...
 
draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt

...is not yet an RfC.  Have fun with testing it.  Will the
questionnaire you're supposed to send to Scott be published
in the tracker ?
                     Bye, Frank

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:15:32 -0400

> extension,  x- is explained in the core document, and 
> formally it's also no extension tag.  BTW, apparently...
>  

I'll add the answers as a comment.  The last bits will be included in the
IESG ballot.

-Scott-