In <200202081811(_dot_)g18IBB907486(_at_)astro(_dot_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
I'm not ignoring it. I'm categorically stating that:
Indeed you are.
And other people are categorically stating the exact opposite :-( .
No, correct syntax alone isn't sufficient. The proposal must at least
appear to be sound and not harmful, and failure to address
security/privacy considerations is a frequent source of harm.
(cookies in HTTP, various frobs to request an automatic response in email)
Yes, but a registry is not the place to specify syntax or other technical
details. That is what the indicated specification or the ongoing
discussion is for. Agreed that, at the time of registration, some degree
of soundness and lack of harmfulness is needed. But that is just a matter
of insisting that the initial specification is clear enough to permit
experimental use in the wild, and that the forum proposed for its
discussion is the most appropriate one (e.g. that there is not already
another forum tackling the exact same problem).
Fine. Give the submitter of the proposal two options in response
to an unfavorable review by the expert:
1. withdraw the proposal
2. list the field in the registry, along with the review
Yes, that is OK.
And still give the expert reviewer the right to categorically reject
applications for fields that are misleading, vanity fields, etc.
Give the submitter the right of appeal to IESG, IAB, etc. if necessary.
Agreed.
The main point is, that things don't go into the registry at all without
some documentation and without being accompanied by some community review.
Agreed.
--
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