To repeat, the real debate here is about parental controls on
registrations,
What I had in mind was a consensus model with a designated expert
making the final call.
Having the "parent" be a group does not change the model or the problems
with it.
Your use of the word 'parental' could be misleading, because it imples
that the 'parents' are somehow superior to the person submitting the
proposal, and that there are a small number of 'parents'. That's not
what is being proposed.
There are problems with any model. I think there are fewer problems
with a model for extensions that requires community review, than with
one that doesn't require any review.
At 09:55 AM 2/11/2002 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
I think that specs for new header fields should be published as RFCs.
The world has multiple venues for publication of Internet
specifications. The only concern for publication venue should be
reliability of long-term access.
Standards organizations tend to respect one another's wishes about
extending another organization's protocols. IETF tends to want to
control extensions to its own protocols.
Keith