{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-requirements/issues/81","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-requirements/issues/81/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-requirements/issues/81/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-requirements/issues/81/events","html_url":"https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-requirements/issues/81","id":119767528,"number":81,"title":"G-001: extensions and new protocols / standard and proprietary","user":{"login":"dromasca","id":10957130,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/10957130?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/dromasca","html_url":"https://github.com/dromasca","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dromasca/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dromasca/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dromasca/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dromasca/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dromasca/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dromasca/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dromasca/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dromasca/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dromasca/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":3,"created_at":"2015-12-01T17:28:17Z","updated_at":"2016-01-25T14:37:56Z","closed_at":null,"body":"G-001 reads: \r\n\r\n> Solution Extensibility: The information model, data models,\r\n    protocols, and transports defined by SACM MUST be designed to allow\r\n    support for future extensions, including both standard and\r\n    proprietary transport protocols and data models.\r\n\r\nThis seems ambiguous to me. Maybe two different issues are mixed here: \r\n- extending the already defined information models, data models, protocols and transports with elements, attributes, new functions that may be standard or proprietary\r\n- supporting new data models, protocols, and transports \r\n\r\nFor the later I am reluctant to write a requirement for extensibility with proprietary protocols or data models. Even for standard protocols and data models I believe we need to make clear that extensions MUST comply to the SACM requirements.  "},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-requirements/issues/comments/174525400","html_url":"https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-requirements/issues/81#issuecomment-174525400","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-requirements/issues/81","id":174525400,"user":{"login":"llorenzin","id":10946517,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/10946517?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/llorenzin","html_url":"https://github.com/llorenzin","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/llorenzin/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/llorenzin/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/llorenzin/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/llorenzin/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/llorenzin/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/llorenzin/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/llorenzin/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/llorenzin/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/llorenzin/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-01-25T14:37:56Z","updated_at":"2016-01-25T14:37:56Z","body":"I agree with Dan that it is as important, and possibly more important, to make sure proprietary extensions are easy to implement.  This requirement was changed in -12 from a MUST applying to both future SACM extensions and proprietary extensions, to a MUST for future SACM extensions and a SHOULD for proprietary extensions, when the requirement was broken into two clauses.  I disagree with that change and believe that the MUST should be restored, preserving the original intent of the requirement."}}