> Hey all,
>
> As a follow-up to our virtual interim this afternoon, the chairs would like to make a consensus call on the following questions:
>
> A. Should this working group do something about civic address extensibility?
>
Yes, provided "clarify how to do it within the existing mechanisms".
> B. Should we create a single extension element that can express registered, "global" elements?
>
No.
> C. Should we create a mechanism for private/local extensions in the DHCP civic address format, and recommendations about how to create private/local extensions in DHCP and XML?
>
I think you need to clarify whether "private" means "unknowable to
others" or something
else. Relaxing the CAtype registry to fcfs would make it possible to
use it for local
extensions, but it would not be private. What value of "private" is
required here?
regards,
Ted
> Please send responses to the list no later than Friday, 3 December 2010.
>
> Thanks,
> --Richard
> _______________________________________________
> 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
