Subject: Re: [lisp] My proposed revisions to the charter

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:06:00 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>

    >> But what about, e.g., a field intended for later use in such
    >> an extension?

    > That too would be out of scope.
    > A field  for future extensibility. . . could be OK.

I guess I don't understand the difference between the two.

Note that I did say "a field ... for later use", and I don't quite see how
that's different from "a field for future extensibility".

I am _not_ trying to argue for the inclusion of any substantial text (beyond a
sentence or two describing the field, in whatever document describes that
packet format), i.e. the extension itself would _not_ be documented, nor would
a document about it be an output document of the current WG.

	Noel

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:17:47 -0400

>>>>> "Noel" == Noel Chiappa <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> That too would be out of scope.  A field for future
    >> extensibility. . . could be OK.

    Noel> I guess I don't understand the difference between the two.

Ok.  I guess the question is whether the field has a specific meaning
that is beyond what we're doing today.  If it does, then we run into problems where we have to discuss whether we believe that's a good idea.

If the field is simply some field that might support unspecified
evolution and we're applying the general criteria of protocol
extensibility and good engineering design and we don't have to build
consensus on some specific evolutionary path, then that's totally
fine.