Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Text needed for: Applicaiton ID in the header

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:28:56 +0300

Hi Yoshihiro,

> I have a transition plan in my mind.  During the transition period,
> just assigning two different values for the same command name, i.e.,
> one is assigned from the temporal space and another is assigned from
> the standard space, and the implementation interprets both values 
> as that command name.  Very simple.  An issue is how long the 
> transition period should be.  Not too long not to short.
> 
> I believe this is the win-win solution between IETF and other SDOs,
> and the VSC approach does not outperform this approach in terms of
> interoperability.  (VSA is different, I agree that we need VSA to
> carry vendor-specific information and does not affect interoperability
> so much.)

This actually will be more complicated in reality.  What I think is a good
plan is to allow experimental command codes, which are not assumed
to be unique.  Use of these experimental commands do not guarantee 
interoperability and are meant for experimentation. See: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-iana-experimental-allocations-01.txt for more detail.

John

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:06:27 -0400

John,

> interoperability and are meant for experimentation. See: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-iana-experimental-allocations-01.txt for more detail.

The following is your entire suggestion for experimental
implementation:

1.  Use of non-unique experimental command codes 
2.  Use of unique application identifiers
3.  Making application identifiers + experimental command codes 
    to be unique (as mentioned by Bernard)

As I mentioned earlier, doing something similar to 3) can always be a
backdoor for experimental implementation to stay long without
a standardization process.  It seems to me this is essentially
equivalent to just replacing the word "Vendor-ID" with
"Application-ID" and I'm afraid this would be rejected by IESG again
unless the IESG just does not like the word "vendor specific" :)

Note that my proposal is a bit different from the temporary
assignments described in
draft-narten-iana-experimental-allocations-01.txt in that there is no
explicit number returning action is necessary in my proposal, just
expires just like Internet-Drafts.  So the same drawbacks of the
temporary assignments do not necessarity hold for my proposal, I
think.  But needs more detailed discussion.

> John

Thanks,
Yoshihiro Ohba