Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com> writes:
At 10:11 AM 2/3/2002 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I don't see any point in putting details that may change or be dropped
entirely into an IETF header registry. If that's what you want, just
use Dan's registry.
There is a difference between a casual, personal activity, versus a
formal one operated by an organization.
Yes, there is, but that's beside the point.
I don't see any useful purpose served by a half-way registry that doesn't
contain just standardized, documented, and reviewed headers, but
simultaneously doesn't contain all the headers being used. I do see a
useful purpose served by both a registry that contains everything and a
registry that contains only well-documented and reviewed headers.
The IETF is quite well-qualified to set up and establish the rules for
maintaining the latter. I think it's poorly qualified to maintain the
former, and I don't think that it should try.
If some organization wants to pick up Dan's registry, that could arguably
make it more stable and useful, but I don't think the IETF is the right
organization to do that. Among other things, having a standards body
maintain an explicitly unstandardized list seems like a conflict of goals.
--
Russ Allbery (rra(_at_)stanford(_dot_)edu)
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>