On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 17:49:54 -1000
David Conrad <drc(_at_)virtualized(_dot_)org> wrote:
Hi,
On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
I agree with Ned. The main purpose of the registry should be to
document what is out there, not to act as a gatekeeper. Even when
a protocol is not a full standard, having a public documentation
is useful. Documentation enables filtering, monitoring, even
debugging.
This is not how IANA staff have been directed to maintain the IETF
registries.
That is not how IANA staff has been directed to maintain *some* IETF
registries. Typically, the RFC that creates a registry specifies the
conditions for it. It may be "IETF consensus", or a whole host of
other options; see RFC 5226 for more details. The issue here is
two-fold: what are the specified conditions for this particular
registry, and was the decision of the TLS WG correct when it specified
them?
Christian's note suggests other code point design strategies that don't
run into the "limited number of small integers" problem. Very true --
and those strategies are explicitly recognized by 5226. There may be a
problem here, but it's not the general IANA problem, it's the specific
decision made once upon a time.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf