ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC

2003-11-26 12:10:29



Brett Watson <famous-asrg(_at_)nutters(_dot_)org>:
I don't have any fundamental objection to the use of the "keywords"
field for this purpose, but I think that any special
universally-meaningful keywords which are introduced should be given
their own "namespace", purely out of respect for the original intent
of the field.

This just pushes the problem back a level.  How do you know you won't
collide with someone else's namerspace grab? :-)
-- 

The other point in this regard is that people are unlikely to grab namespace
that is going to lead to their emails being deep-sixed.

It is in practice pretty easy to grab namespace in the IETF. Just deploy
something that uses it and the chance anyone will tread on you is
negligible.

There is an IP address that people are forbidden to use because it was the
default address in an ancient version of SunO/S. Try to use the address and
you would fail, even today.

Consider the following thought experiment. I want to use a DNS code type for
my own use. The WG refuses to accept my paper, I say screw them and deploy
anyway and use the next number in line to do so. I deploy on a wide scale.
What does the WG do when it comes to assign a code to the next draft that
comes along needing one? Does it insist on creating a collision or just skip
to the next one of the 65,000 free choices?

If it is possible to game the system against the IETF in this way the
reverse is also true. Nobody is likely to use one of these keywords as a
result of an accident, provided that we take a step outside the domain used
by human keyword generators.
 

                Phill

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg