On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 at 20:14, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> Definite screenshot-2 preference for me. Though I do wonder just looking at the image whether the reserved stuff
evenneeds a table. The first row is not even a parameter but a guideline, and the second pertains to testing which
seemslike it can be incorporated separately. I'd either go for just one table or two separate tables but not the
combinedvariant in screenshot-1. I'm not seeing an advantage to be gained by the integration.
Agreed. I expect maybe we'll reserve more protocol extensions in the
future (either the improved grease, or when we'll stop supporting an
extension at some point).
Regarding _pq_.[name], I agree with David that I think it would be
better to make that part of the introductory paragraph.
