In <200202071318(_dot_)g17DIS911229(_at_)astro(_dot_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
So you need a requirement that things only go into the registry if it is
anticipated that widely deployed software will want to parse and
understand them
actually I'd argue that sometimes we want to put things in the "registry"
(I'd like to find a better term) for the purpose of saying you should not
implement them.
There are problems with that too. The header as proposed may be dumb. But
later someone else may want to revive the same header for a different
purpose, or even revive it for the same purpose, but with a less dumb
syntax and semantics.
So I don't think negative entries should be automatic, though I don't
oppose the idea althogether.
Maybe the mechanism is that the Area Director/Expert gets to see the
entries before they are registered. Either he says "put it in", or he says
"if this goes in, it must have the following disclaimer attached to it".
Much what the IESG does if the drafts editor wants to publish something
they are not happy about.
Appeal to the full IESG against the expert's decision if necessary, as per
usual practice.
--
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