At 7:27 AM +0300 6/14/07, <Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com> wrote:
I think giving out codepoints freely would in many cases encourage
having multiple (often half-baked) solutions to the same problem.
This is the crux of the issue. Does the IETF want to control bad
ideas through the IETF process *and* the IANA registry, or just the
IETF process? You are proposing the former, I am proposing the
latter. I trust that the IETF process works fine and doesn't need a
backup crutch from IANA. I also trust that developers who look in the
IANA registry and see four entries, one of which is an RFC and three
of which are URLs to individuals and corporate web sites, to be able
to make the right decision about what they want to implement.
I'm not saying that this particular cooperation would not have
happened with less strict IANA policies -- but I do believe that
if the bar for getting codepoints and publishing an RFC would be
significantly lower than today, we would have a much larger number
of poorly concieved and overlapping extensions to various IETF
protocols.
Fully agree. But we're not talking about lowering the bar to
publishing RFCs, only to registering codepoints.
(And IMHO that would not always be interop-neutral.)
Why not? As long as the reader of the IANA registry can ascertain
which codepoint owner is at a particular level, how would that affect
interop?
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf