>This is doing nothing more than formalizing the extensibility scheme
>that is already provided for XML in such a way that it can be
>translated into RFC 4776. And this goes right to the heart of the
>extensibility philosophy of the work we do here.
<my rant>
this rant is probably the least intelligent thing I've ever heard/read you say.
</my rant>
Now the facts:
The IETF created and "OWNS" the civic datum. They have every right to
claim to be the ultimate source for its definitions, extensions and
registrations - that is, until they collectively choose to give that
right up (which they haven't).
you don't like it? Get the IETF to give up its rights to the datum --
but until then, deal with it!
James
><rant>
>I find the idea that the IETF should maintain a monopoly on the
>definition of civic addresses offensive. The same goes for much of
>the work we do. It's an insult to the community that uses our
>stuff. Familiar as I am with the well-worn stories about the
>standard that was poisoned by proprietary extension, I simply don't
>buy into that ethos.
>
>We build protocols with extension in mind not only for the benefit
>of the IETF, but also to allow others to benefit.
>
>The cost is in occasional duplications of effort and
>interoperability problems. By the same measure that these sorts of
>genuine problems arise from the provided extension capability, they
>are also mitigated. If this capability was not provided, I propose
>that our standard would not be used at all, or it would be used in
>some altered state that would entirely prevent interoperability of
>the most basic functions. This doesn't prevent real problems from
>occurring, but we were never going to stop them in any case.
>
>Of course, I recognise and appreciate that others will have a
>different opinion. There are good reasons for tighter control in
>some cases. But not for civic addresses.
></rant>
>
>--Martin
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of James M. Polk
> > Sent: Wednesday, 8 September 2010 8:14 AM
> > To: Winterbottom, James; Brian Rosen
> > Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] New Version Notification for draft-winterbottom-
> > geopriv-local-civic-00
>...
> > see, this to me is a real problem - as I see "no one has to come to
> > the IETF to define new things" as creating something RIPE for
> > collisions, i.e., incompatible elements or descriptions that mean one
> > thing to one (group) and an entirely different thing to the other
> > (group).
> >
> > This, to me, breeds incompatibility - only to get worse over time.
> >
> > IANA is there to prevent this - and what you're suggesting is to
> > circumvent that registration (with associated document defining the
> > means/usage of such a/each new element.
>_______________________________________________
>Geopriv mailing list
>Geopriv@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
