In
<5(_dot_)1(_dot_)0(_dot_)14(_dot_)2(_dot_)20020203200123(_dot_)039301b0(_at_)joy(_dot_)songbird(_dot_)com>
Graham Klyne <GK-lists(_at_)ninebynine(_dot_)org> writes:
There is no requirement for uniqueness in the provisional registry. In
theory, the original registrant can change their provisional registration
and if that no longer corresponds to a wideley followed practice of the
original registration then someone else may reinstate the original
registration as a new entry.
Well it has to be unique to the extent that there can only be one
outstanding proposal for a given header within a given protocol at one
point in time.
The problem I do see is that the change of registration details may occur
silently. But if the cited document is not an RFC, then there is no
(IETF-ish) control over changes to the specification document cited by the
registration.
Yes, the IESG must have some ultimate control. Your present draft gives
them power to remove an entry - maybe the details of that need fleshing
out some more. For example, one of the powers they may need is to replace
a registrant by a different registrant.
--
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