Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709040106.0567d070@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 04:44:15 +0200
To: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>,
	"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #1061] eliminate (or proscribe)Private Use Tags
In-Reply-To: <002701c58423$e11e0550$6501a8c0@sanjose.ibm.com>
References: <42CF079D.4000003@megared.net.mx>
	<009101c58416$14677a80$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<20050708233753.GJ4776@NYCMJCOWA2>
	<009501c5841c$a8d047a0$9b753009@sanjose.ibm.com>
	<016201c58421$970fa7e0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<002701c58423$e11e0550$6501a8c0@sanjose.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 03:16 09/07/2005, Mark Davis wrote:
>(2) "Private-use subtags have no meaning outside of a private agreement
>between parties. They may also be given different meanings by different
>private agreements between those or other parties. Thus they SHOULD NOT be
>used wherever there is alternative, and they SHOULD NOT be used in content
>or protocols intended for general use. Private-use subtags, like all other
>subtags, MUST conform to the format constraints specified in the ABNF.
>
>What do you think of that?

Dear Mark and Randy,
I submit that this is not a very important change in text, but it 
translates an important change in the spirit of RFC 3066. This is a true 
lack of spirit retrocompatibility. I have nothing against that. To the 
contrary the abandon of strict retrocompatbility permits interesting other 
innovations. But I do not want to suggest them without being supported by a 
consensus, otherwise Randy will say I rise closed issues.

There are 57 folks on this list. I suppose that we could say that this 
proposition is supported by a consensus if 29 (50% +1) supports it. Either 
this proposition is adopted by consensus (I support it), strict 
retrocompatibility is forgotten: then I will propose something everyone 
could agree with to replace x-tags (but which would be opposed now on the 
grounds of retrocompatibility) - or it is not and we will continue with x-tags.

So please every supporter of  this change, and/or opponent to x-tags as we 
want to use them rises hand or humms.

Those who supports x-tags, IMHO you can support Mark's text because if 
strict retrocompatibility is abandonned, the solution I would propose could 
even be better. But there is no need to work on it if there is not a real 
consensus.
Thank you.
jfc 


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru