-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:12 AM
... however we may disagree about how "light-weight" the
registration should be.
I still want to see a brief review period, with community
input, before registration is accepted, and I want to have
the possibility for the registration to be deined - especially
if it's abusive or misleading. I think that will work better
than automatically accepting whatever extensions are proposed.
I think the default action should be to register a field, with
provisions for de-registering abusive ones (assuming you mean personally
abusive, like "So-and-so-is-a-doofus: Yes").
either personally abusive, or misleading field names that say one thing
but mean another (like the titles of bills in the US Congress), or
frivolous proposals.
The reality is that
refusing to register a field does not mean that it won't be deployed, it
just means that there is no place for me, as an implementer, to find out
anything about that header when I encounter it.
well, I've suggested that registrations could be marked with a
"waiting for review" placeholder before review, so they would
appear in the registry - just as long as we get a prompt review.
but if the review time is (for most purposes) bounded to 2 to 4 weeks,
are we really worried about race conditions during that window?
I don't think a
registration should ever be revoked just because it's a bad idea - if
it's out there, it's out there and I want to know that I'd better not
use the name "FooBar" for a field because there's already some dumb UA
using that name in a totally stupid manner and who knows what will
happen to my UA if it ever receives one of its messages.
that much sounds reasonable.
The registry is not, IMO, about approval - it is about notifying the
Internet community of a field and making information about it readily
available. That information should include the community's assessment
of the value/danger of the field, but we should not refuse registration
just because a field is deemed dangerous. We should, in fact,
*encourage* it because the registration provides a forum for the
community to warn about the dangers of the field (assuming we can't
influence it to make it non-dangerous).
I agree with the above sentiment. I just think that putting a field in
a registry without getting prompt review will do more harm than good.
Keith