Subject: RE: [Ietf-calsify] Issue 95: text on REQUEST-STATUS

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 23:26:33 -0400

Hi Tim,

--On May 6, 2008 10:55:26 PM -0400 Tim Hare <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I don't have a strong opinon about a registry, not having a lot of
> experience with them; my point is that only those codes which are defined
> in the document should be used in a non X- component.  That could be done
> by enumerating those interoperable codes in the RFC document, I suppose
> although the registry has the advantage of allow us to include new codes
> 'by reference' rather than having to revise the RFC again.
>

Well we could just say that new codes must be defined in a standards track 
RFC. That way other specs can add there own and review of those can ensure 
there are no clashes

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

_______________________________________________
Ietf-calsify mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-calsify