On 13 Oct 2019, at 7:25, Barry Leiba wrote:
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?
Why have any word other than "non-standard"? It is *not* proprietary in
that multiple vendors implement it and there appears to be no licensing
requirement from the authors.
--Paul Hoffman
