The one technical argument concerning protocols not providing support to indicate what namespaces they understand has been shown to be incorrect. All other arguments have boiled down to a lack of understanding of element scoping within XML.
Interoperability within jurisdictions is assured for any device if it follows basic XML rules, which it should already be following given the current specifications anyway.
All that I see in the arguments provided is a desire to have the IETF control what other organizations can do, and as Martin indicated previously, this borders on being offensive and is totally unnecessary. It wastes IETF and other organization resources and delays implementation and deployment creating a lose-lose environment for everybody.
Regards
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net]
> Sent: Friday, 10 September 2010 8:23 AM
> To: Thomson, Martin
> Cc: James M. Polk; Richard L. Barnes; Winterbottom, James;
> geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] New Version Notification for draft-winterbottom-
> geopriv-local-civic-00
>
> Nearly every IETF defined namespace has some kind of extension point to
> which some newer element can be attached. There are no protocol police,
> so anyone can create anything using those extension points. This is of
> course true with PIDF, it has always been true, and no one is suggesting
> changing it.
>
> However, we nearly always require, in an IETF document sense, that
> extensions be defined in document and/or a registry, and that they have at
> least a modicum of IETF review before adding them to a registry. We do
> this to foster interoperability and to prevent dumb things from happening.
>
> A lot of protocol mechanisms work the same way - for example, we often
> have ABNF that is more permissive than the document actually defines.
>
> In this case, some of use are saying that even though anyone can already
> add anything they want to a PIDF, and get a validated XML document, don't
> do that.
>
> Brian
>
> On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:52 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
>
> > James Polk writes:
> >> Brian and I (at least) are stating that registries prevent collisions
> >> and increase interoperability by understanding what a given element
> >> means. If some random other SDO or group of guys in a garage decide
> >> to define a <cl:HMO> element that isn't in line with RFC 4119, 4776,
> >> 5139 *and* IANA -- they are increasing the likelihood of
> >> miscommunications.
> >
> > James,
> >
> > Namespaces in XML have inherent protection against collision. The only
> viable concern is the interoperability one. If you want that; we have a
> registry.
> >
> > --Martin
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
