At 03:04 PM 2/3/2002 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
No, I've said on multiple occasions that it's reasonable and useful to
register extensions that have consensus but don't meet the 2026 requirements
for standards track.
please cite existing specifications for such a process that are used
elsewhere in the IETF community.
> 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.
It seems clear that you want to persuade others by misrepresenting my
views, and resorting to ridicule,
Keith, over the years you have seen me do ridicule more than once. This
exchange isn't even a close approximation to that.
Presumably you do not wish to claim that a participant has no right to
attempt to summarize your views. So if you do not agree with a particular
summary, feel free to provide a detailed correction.
However jumping into ad hominems guarantees a process that is
counterproductive or unpleasant. Usually both.
Perhaps we simply disagree. I don't think that documenting stupid
ideas that have no community support is a useful exercise of either
IETF's or the RFC Editor's time, energy, or network bandwidth.
We do it all the time. The fact that some are more theatrical stupid than
others is quite secondary.
CMOT was stupid. So was MIME.
Oops. Perhaps stupid is in the eye of the reader.
Perhaps we should to hold off on that kind of assessment and simply
distinguish between standard and non-standard.
Doing so just serves to degrade the value of the RFC document series
and confuses the marketplace.
Keith, I do encourage you to review the RFC document series. It really
does have quite a lot of crap in it.
You are trying to treat the RFC series as a quality assurance process. It
isn't. The IETF standards process is.
The same for a simple IANA registration service. It is not for quality
assurance. It is for registration. The IETF does the Q/A part and imparts
a special imprimatur for it.
Let's not confuse functions.
You seem to forget that different protocols have different extension
mechanisms, and different registries have different criteria - for
good reasons. I'm arguing about the criteria for *this* registry.
son of a gun. I thought I was too.
On the other hand, I want to use an existing model and you seem to want to
invent a new one.
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