ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: IANA registration constraints (was: Re: Withdrawing sponsorship...)

2007-06-14 08:50:38
It seems to me that the IANA registry could provide more influence for the IETF 
if run as Paul suggests.

So I go to the code page for the USELESS cipher. It tells me that the cipher 
has not been approved by the IETF, has not been endorsed by any professional 
bodies and is not an IETF standard.

We would at last have a mechanism to trump the usual claim that an internet 
draft has been submitted so please consider me as good as being a standard.

Or another organization could run the registry.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:46 AM
To: Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: IANA registration constraints (was: Re: 
Withdrawing sponsorship...)

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


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>