Generally, adding previously undefined elements is
considered to be a
breaking change that requires a new namespace, especially in a
protocol that is already deployed.
Adding new elements seems like the least breaking change? Unless they're
marked as manadatory, any implementation needs to be able to handle unknown
child elements in any position they don't expect anyway.
I get why the processing rules were added. However I
really think they
are approaching the problem backwards. As a service operator,
receiving a report that says "here is a problem, but I forbid you from
doing anything about it" is a rather silly situation. It would almost
be better to not receive the report at all
Agreed.