Ned,
On Apr 25, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
I see no value in deallocating code point spaces
It depends on the size of the space.
Why?
Because if you deallocate and reallocate it, there can be conflicts. Perhaps
you haven't noticed, but a lot of times people continue to use stuff that IETF
considers to be bad ideas, including but not limited to things we called
experiments at some point.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but no one was suggesting deallocating and
reallocating anything that was in use. Or do you have a different
interpretation of "if appropriate"?
And getting rid of information that people may need to get things to
interoperate seems to, you know, kinda go against some of our core principles.
Sorry, where did anyone suggest getting rid of any "information that people may
need to get things to interoperate" again? Or do you interpret moving a XML
page from a web server into an informational RFC to be "getting rid" of
information?
I'll admit I find this thread bordering on the surreal with some fascinating
kneejerk reactions. As far as I can tell, the only thing that was proposed was
something to "encourage documentation of the conclusion of experiments" and "if
appropriate, deprecate any IANA code points allocated for the experiment".
Both of these seem like good things to me. This has somehow been translated
into variously:
a) a declaration about how research is done
b) deletion and/or reallocation of "code point spaces" that people are using
c) killing off successful protocols because they're documented in experimental
not standards track rfcs
d) violating "our core principles"
e) process for the sake of process
f) IANA being a control point for the Internet
g) etc.
Did I miss a follow-up message from the Inherently Evil Steering Group that
proposed these sorts of things?
Regards,
-drc