--On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 13:32 +1000 Mark Andrews
<marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org> wrote:
Closing the registry is not irreversable if it needs to be
reversed. It's not like we can forget that there were assigned
code points and anything that attempted to use those code
points would have to consider the fact that they were used at
one time.
Actually, Mark, we very rarely close registries if there is any
possibility of reopening them. We may raise the threshold for
registration, etc. (in this case, new types already require
standards action, which should make it adequately easy to head
off bad or frivolous ideas), but closing is a big step. Telling
implementers that they don't need to pay attention to the
relevant codes and fields (and might even be able to use them
for a different, even if private, purpose) is an even more
serious step.
But I'd like to ask that this discussion move up a level. My
question was about what the WG considered and whether, in the
light of those discussions, there was really justification to
take the serious step of abandoning a facility and consensus on
that justification. It seems to me that your responses have
addressed different questions entirely: your opinion about
alternate approaches in the earlier note and a suggestion about
the possibility of reopening registries in this one.
Because the questions I asked are tightly connected to what the
WG discussed and on what basis the presumably-consensus decision
was made, I would hope that I (and, more important, the IESG and
the community) would hear from the WG Chairs and other
participants, not only from someone who, coincidentally or not,
is part of the same organization as the three authors of the
draft (a draft that does not indicate the active participation
of any other people or organizations by the presence of an
Acknowledgments section).
best regards,
john