Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:11:01 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam(_at_)dynamicsoft(_dot_)com>
Message-ID:
<9BF66EBF6BEFD942915B4D4D45C051F3A640ED(_at_)DYN-TX-EXCH-001(_dot_)dynamicsoft(_dot_)com>
| On the topic of "P-" headers, however, there is still guidance that
| such extensions require, at a minimum, publication as an RFC:
|
| "[A]ny P-header used outside of a very restricted research or teaching
| environment (such as a student lab on implementing extensions) MUST
| meet those requirements and MUST be documented in an RFC and be IANA
| registered."
This kind of text in any RFC (or other publication) is no more than an
attempt at extortion. Nothing published in an RFC can possibly constrain
what anyone else does, anywhere. Believing otherwise is ludicrous.
We can constrain our own behaviour, since that's what we control, so we
could (assuming that we believe IANA is part of "us") specify that IANA
must not register a header unless it is documented in an RFC. But we
cannot tell people that they're not allowed to use such things. Or more
correctly, of course we can tell them that, but without any expectation
that many of them will take us seriously.
Whether or not the IETF decides that it should adopt work done by others
(even just as much as re-publishing it for information) will be something
that should get decided on a case by case basis (or as agreed with other
bodies in appropriate circumstances), but pretending that the IETF is the
supreme lord of the universe, and everyone else must bow down to the
pronouncements in RFCs (even in cases where IETF created technology is
under discussion) is laughable.
kre