On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Eric Rosen <erosen(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Phillip> But I rather suspect that the reason that this is happening is
that
Phillip> people know full well that there is a process and choose to ignore
Phillip> it because they either can't be bothered to put up with the hassle
Phillip> or don't think that the application will be accepted.
Lars> Suspect all you want, but it doesn't match my experience.
Phillip's suspicion certainly matches my experience over the past 15 years,
and I've even done my own share of codepoint squatting. He is also correct
to state that many folks try to use control over the codepoint space as
part
of their competitive marketing strategy. The only way to avoid collisions
due to "squatting" is to adopt a policy that all codepoint fields be large
enough so that a significant number of codepoints are available for FCFS
allocations.
One rather critical consideration here is that the lack of control provides
the IETF with some rather important protection against this type of attack
and is one of the reasons that the loose organizational structures are
relatively stable.
If the registry was a control point there would be far more people
attempting to capture it.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf