On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 01:18:31AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:39:05 -0400
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret(_at_)thingmagic(_dot_)com>
No, I didn't say that at all, ever. What I said was that the IESG should
have determined whether there was adequate documentation for the option.
That is, whether the documentation was clear, unambiguous, complete, and
would allow an implementation of the option by someone who wanted to
do that, or for someone to understand what the bits in the packets
passing through their network are suppsred to mean.
| Specification Required - Values and their meaning must be
| documented in an RFC or other permanent and readily available
| reference, in sufficient detail so that interoperability
| between independent implementations is possible.
yes, that one is "there must be some documentation"
Doesn't "interoperability between independent implementations" mean
"clear, unambiguous, complete"?
My interpretation of "Specification Required so that interoperability
between independent implementation" certainly implies everything which
you claim "IESG approval" means.
Your interpretation of "Specification Required" as "it's OK if the
specification is crappy and might lead to non-interoperable
implementation" seems to be belied by the definition of "Specification
Required" which you quoted above.
So if that is the case, then IESG Approval should mean something else,
and hopefully something implies more than "the idea, good or bad, has
a complete specification." "Doesn't destroy the internet" seems like
a good reasonable criteria, and there problably should be others that
the IESG might want to apply --- and I for one am quite willing to
give that discretion to the IESG as to what criteria they believe
should be applied. If they abuse that power, well that's what the
appeals process and the nomcom process is all about.
And of course, at the end of the day, implementors can always ignore
IANA. Lack of registration certainly has not stopped various vendors,
including Microsoft, to create and sell products with unregistered
code points in Telnet, DHCP, and other IETF protocols. But if the
IESG is going to "approve", that certainly implies a certain
assumption of the quality of the assignment. Otherwise, IMHO, we
should just say "Specification Required".
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf