In <ylhep0wyav(_dot_)fsf(_at_)windlord(_dot_)stanford(_dot_)edu> Russ Allbery
<rra(_at_)stanford(_dot_)edu> writes:
Charles Lindsey <chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> writes:
And the recommendation for someone devising some experimental protocol
that is expected to require code in widely-deployed software is to use a
non-X header, whatever any standards might say. There are dangers in
this, but it is regarded as the lesser of the two evils.
I think that's an (unintentionally) misleading way of putting it. The
recommendation is that when someone gets ready to *deploy* a protocol over
e-mail outside of the originating organization or test base, they should
use a non-X name; in other words, as soon as people start putting
recognition of that name into normal software on a non-test basis, use of
the X name is inappropriate since it then creates unnecessary work in
future standardization.
But by the time the protocol extension reaches that point, it should
*already* be an I-D and the IETF consensus process can begin.
Well, for a header to get included in the Provisional Register you should
need two things:
(1) A specification published in an accessible place. That might be a web
site, an Internet Draft, or even an experimental RFC.
(2) A forum in which to discuss it. Which could be a mailing list or a
Usenet newsgroup.
Graham's present draft make provision for (1), but not for (2), but that
could easily be fixed.
An Internet Draft has the great advantage that it generally (always?) has a
mailing list attached to it (or even an IETF Working Group), so it
automatically provides (1) and (2). Indeed, an Internet Draft should be
regarded as the normal route to Provisional Registration (and it should
certainly be mentioned as such in Graham's draft). We could even go further
and say that it was the ONLY route (that seems to be the position Russ is
taking) but I am not so sure about that - it needs to be discussed.
But if principles (1) and (2) were built into the system, many of Keith's
objections would be satisfied. People would know what the current
specification was. If they thought it was a dumb idea, or needed
improvement, there is a place to make their concerns heard. And, because
it is clearly provisional, they have ample warning that the details may
change, or even that the idea might be dropped altogether (BTW, expiry of
a draft without a durther draft should be automatic grounds for removal
from the Provisional Registry).
Exceptions of headers that reach widespread use without ever going through
IETF standardization can be dealt with separately. Encouraging people to
take that route rather than properly documenting their extension in an
IETF document strikes me as counter-productive.
I see no purpose served by the provisional registry.
On the contrary, I think it could do pretty well exactly what you are
after.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5
Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5