At 08:28 PM 10/5/01 +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>>There is provision in RFC 2434 for "Designated Experts" appointed by the
>>Area Director to approve registrations.
>Well, we could go that way, but it doesn't require RFC publication of the
>specification (IIRC). My preference is to pick one of the stronger
conditions.
I think there are several mechanisms that could be used. Ones menmtioned
so far have included:
existence of an internet-draft
Designated Experts
registry of "bogus" headers
[...]
For an IANA registry, the criteria for IANA to apply have to be very clear
and straightforward. To my mind, that means limiting the conditions to one
stated in RFC 2434 unless there is a really compelling reason to do
something else.
>Options I might consider:
>(a) for each header, allow different definitive citations for different
uses.
>(b) limit the applicability of the registry to email/news (though even that
>may be problematic in light of your comment about USEFOR).
>(c) limit the applicability of the registry to email. (If required, other
>applications might define separate registries that import
I think it has to be (a).
[...]
Certainly one wants ths usages of a given header across a variety of
protocols to be broadly similar. But I think IETF Working Groups are well
abel to look after that, provided the registry is there to alert them to
possible conflicts.
[...]
Because if someone is proposing to invent a Foobar: header for Netnews, he
might look in the Netnews registry and find that it did not exist, little
knowing that it already existed in the Mail registry.
You make a good case for a single registry; in particular that it would
probably help to avoid re-use of headers for different purposes.
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham(_dot_)Klyne(_at_)Baltimore(_dot_)com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------