We could say that explicitly if you like.
There is no interoperability issue with two types. The ONLY functional difference is the SHOULD IMPLEMENT. That doesn't create interop problems.
The judgement is the IETFs (PS RFC), not IANAs.
I'm not following the "convert" issue. Who is converting what?
Brian
On Mar 8, 2011, at 6:02 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> OK, so you DO want to re-run the arguments.
>
> Having two types of registry is more harmful to interoperability.
>
> On 2011-03-09 at 09:37:46, Brian Rosen wrote:
>> There is only one registry. There are two types of registrations. The
>> only difference is the level of scrutiny. The functional difference
>> is SHOULD IMPLEMENT Type A.
>
> Whether or not something should be implemented is not a judgment that we (or IANA) either need or want to make. The current text doesn't make that decision necessary.
>
> Worse, if you have two classes of registration, once the decision is made it's permanent.
>
> So you have to discuss how to choose which applies for a particular registration. For instance, your "Type A" doesn't convert properly unless it is understood by the converter.
>
> --Martin
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
