At 5:22 PM +0200 6/12/07, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm not sure whether I agree with your proposal or not, but I think
the most concrete way forward would be a proposal for specific
wording for draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis, which
Harald left on my plate and I left for Russ.
This goes beyond just rewording the IANA Considerations document. It
requires WGs to actually understand the interoperability issues John
brings up. There are plenty of places where a WG has required "IETF
Consensus" where "RFC published" would be just fine, but they chose
"IETF Consensus" because it sounded better and "this related WG just
used it in their spec so we should too". It would be great if WGs
would start looking at the IANA registry as something that will
promote interoperability of their specs, not as an enforcement
mechanism for controlling extensions (except where the protocol was
mis-designed to have too small of a namespace for robust
extensibility).
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf