At 02:44 PM 2/3/2002 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> >A registry introduces a third possibility - documenting practice that
> >isn't either existing or desirable.
>
> if someone wants to document it and share it, then it is desireable to
> somebody.
the fact that somebody desires that a protocol extension be documented and
shared does not imply that it benefits the internet community for IETF
to help them.
it helps to stay with specific, stable criteria.
you previously said "desireable".
now you want to move to using the same criteria that are used for IETF
standards.
it seems clear that you do not want to discuss a registry. rather, you
want to impose a standards process on all header name publications.
that's redundant with the existing standards prcess.
should IETF help "document and share" Fleming's IPv16 proposal?
yes.
you seem to be forgetting the difference between the IETF openness to
sharing ideas with the IETF approval process for a subset of those ideas.
you also seem to be forgetting that the model in the msg header registry
proposal is already in use by IANA, so we are not inventing some high-risk
thing here.
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464