John C Klensin wrote:
To me, the fundamental question here is whether, in the last
analysis, we consider it more important to have
* the best and most extensive Internet interoperability
* a maximum of real or imagined IETF control over all
protocols in use on the Internet.
We claim to believe the former and then often behave as if we
believe the latter.
There are also cases when the latter can also promote the former.
The hurdle of getting IETF consensus and publishing an RFC does
weed out many crazy proposals that, in all fairness, would not
have made the Internet work better, and would not have promoted
Or in other words: we do have many proposals for extending IETF
protocols whose primary motivation is not solving a real-world
need, but rather finding some work for the standardization guys
to do (or getting a PhD or something).
Those extensions might even get "implemented" in some sense of
the word (anyone can set up a SourceForge project), but are not
even meant to be deployed.
If by having some control over IANA allocations we weed out of
this stuff, I have no problems with it. But I agree that the
controls should not be too strict, so that protocols that actually
get deployed are able to get the numbers, and are documented
as RFCs (but IMHO something stricter that "first come first served"
is usually beneficial).
Ietf mailing list