> The Abstract ans Section 1 say: "This is a non-standard proprietary
> extension." I understand that this is not a standards track document, so
> the "non-standard" part makes sense. However, what is the point of
> publishing a "proprietary" extension as an RFC. I would hope that
> interoperable implementations is the goal of publication.
I’m afraid this addition is my fault. Perhaps “proprietary” is the wrong word here: The point is that this is documenting an extension developed by one registry and not in use by others, with the idea that if others want to use it they can follow this to interoperable. It’s rather like when we documented Apple Bonjour as Informational.
Better word?
Barry
