I said >> A feature like 'implements vendor-B version 2.0 variation of tables' >> shouldn't be standards track if vendor-B's version 2.0 variation of >> tables isn't. and Harald replied: > I think we have common practice that we DO include such things in > standards. with several examples. However, I was really trying to apply the same consideration to feature registration that seems to be happening with media type registration: shouldn't there be IETF features, vendor features, private features, experimental features, in the same way? It wasn't an issue of 'document reference' (I know that standards-track documents can reference non-standards-track documents). LarryReceived on Sunday, 6 October 1996 23:57:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:00 UTC