Harald,
The presence of the "X-" option, and the fact that it can be
used among consenting parties without loss of function, puts
both of the cases you mention into the area of "refusal means a
different choice of category" not "refusal encourages the
behavior to occur without proper identification". See the I-D
when it is posted.
john
--On Tuesday, 28 June, 2005 14:37 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
--On tirsdag, juni 28, 2005 07:39:35 -0400 John C Klensin
<john(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
To preview what would otherwise be a discussion on the new
I-D, here we disagree, for two reasons:
(i) For some registrations, especially those for which
there are no alternate registration categories and where
unidentified use of mechanisms might lead to operational
problems, "IESG approval" may be appropriate, but IESG
non-approval must never mean "no, you can't register it".
Two examples of "refusal to register"..... and I don't think
the distinction between the IESG and a designated expert
really matters in order to discuss the principle.
1) The language tag reviewer (a designated expert) rejected
the tag "es-americas" after due debate on the ietf-languages
mailing list.
(Debate led to the same functionality now being registered as
"es-419". That namespace also allows for use of "x-" names.)
2) The MIME type reviewer (another designated expert) has
steadfastly pushed back on attempts to use what's effectively
content transfer encodings as MIME types - the last example is
the debate on "yEnc" in USEFOR. (Here, too, x- names are
allowed)
In both these cases, I think that the designated experts have
been doing their jobs.
I have no strong opinion about the IPv6 hop-by-hop header in
question. But I don't want to (effectively) remove the ability
to refuse registration - I think we'll pay a high price for
that later.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf