--On Tuesday, June 12, 2007 07:11 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
To obtain "IETF approval", there needs to be a sponsoring AD.
Sam explained why he feels he cannot fill that role any
longer. Whether some other AD feels can can serve in his
stead is their individual decision. We do not have any rules
that compel an AD to sponsor a submission. Indeed, being able
to obtain a willing sponsor is considered part of the IETF
vetting process.
Nothing prevents the document from being submitted directly to
the RFC Editor, for publication as a non-IETF document.
That is the avenue I would prefer, but it raises another issue
(which I think would fall into the category Eliot referred to as
<a corner in the process>). As Sam points out, the actual use
of this as a protocol requires IANA registration of parameters
and current procedures for TLS extensions and many other things
require IETF consensus for such registrations and hence for
publication of any document that specifies, or requests IANA
registration of, such parameters.
There may be things that make this particular case special, but,
for the general case, I have gradually come to think that model
is broken. The problem is that the IETF cannot _prevent_
someone from making up a parameter and using it, registered or
not, nor can we punish someone who does so. So, by preventing
registration, we do little but increase the odds that one
unregistered and unapproved extension will use the same
parameter keywords as another, causing interoperability
problems. Preventing publication and registration does not
necessarily reduce the odds that the extension will be used; it
merely reduces the odds that a system encountering that
extension will be able to properly identify it and easily
determine what it is attempting to do.
Consequently, I believe that many of the <IETF Consensus
required> registration requirements should be changed to permit
an alternate lower threshold of:
(1) There has been IETF review and discussion, but the
IETF did not conclude that the idea was wise, or even
perhaps concluded that it was a bad idea. Note that
this is very different from "not reviewed in the
IETF".
(2) There is a reasonable basis for concluding that the
protocol has been, or is likely to be, deployed.
For that class of situation, I now believe that it should be
possible to make an independent submission and, if the RFC
Editor judges that the document is of adequate interest and
technical and editorial quality, be published and the
registrations made. Of course, the document should, at that
stage, be very clear that it is not an IETF-approved protocol
and should ideally explain the reasons why the IETF did not
approve it. Similarly, the registration should be made in the
interest of interoperability but both the "IANA Considerations"
section of the document and the registration itself should
clearly indicate that the registration is to prevent
interoperability problems only and does not imply approval or
endorsement.
Our pretending that a protocol extension will simply go away
because we don't like it --or because we can't agree that we do
like it-- does not make the Internet work better.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf