Completing the SREG 1.1 specification

David Recordon drecordon at
Sat Nov 29 20:24:09 UTC 2008

I certainly want to see us push the world to implementing AX instead  
of SREG, though agree with Mart that there are existing  
interoperability problems with SREG that would be nice to fix given  
that large OPs are still implementing it in a broken fashion.  I'd see  
no issue with including in the SREG spec that people really should go  
use AX instead.


On Nov 29, 2008, at 12:40 AM, Dick Hardt wrote:

> On 28-Nov-08, at 11:28 PM, Martin Atkins wrote:
>> I agree that it's not ideal to have both, and in an ideal world
>> everyone
>> would use AX, but currently SREG seems to be more widely deployed  
>> than
>> AX. This working group proposal was motivated not by some desire to
>> needlessly perpetuate SREG but rather by actual real-world interop
>> problems I've had to deal with as an implementer.
>> As long as folks still want to implement SREG, I think it's  
>> beneficial
>> to have a specification that actually works in practice, which the
>> current draft does not.
> Agreed. I was checking to see what people want to implement!
> If the community is ready to move to AX, then you don't need to do the
> work.
> If the community wants both, then it does need to get cleaned up.
>> Dick Hardt wrote:
>>> A related topic.
>>> Wondering what the community thinks of having two specifications for
>>> moving around profile data: we have SREG and AX: do we need both?
>> _______________________________________________
>> specs mailing list
>> specs at
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at

More information about the specs mailing list