[Standards] Bookmarks 2 extensibility
dave at cridland.net
Mon Nov 25 14:36:30 UTC 2019
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 14:32, Evgeny <xramtsov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 5:25 PM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>
> > We put arbitrary namespaced data inside messages and other stanzas
> > all the time to no ill effect. Why is putting it inside PEP data
> > items so different?
> Because I like the approach used when designing ASN.1 schemas (see for
> example RFC 5280 (PKIX) or, more simple, RFC 6960 (OCSP)), where you
> define "extensions" fields explicitly. And in the case of 'message'
> stanzas we kinda have implicit assumption that this stanza has such
> "extensions" field where we put whatever we need (speaking in ASN.1
> So actually I like the suggestion of Emmanuel with extensions element.
OK, so you're happy with an extension-wrapping element? That's an
acceptable compromise for me - in as much as it's better than nothing -
though I still hold that if a client is manipulating shared data it needs
to preserve things it doesn't understand rather than trample all over them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards