On 05/21/2013 12:08 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Without responding in detail to John's note, I'll say that I agree
substantially with the notion that the fact that someone manages to get
a protocol name or number registered, should not be any kind of
justification for standardization of a document that describes use of
that name or number.
(For that matter, just because a document describes "protocol data
objects" is also not a justification for standardization of that document.)
More generally, IETF standardization should not be a rubber stamp. And
to the extent that people have that notion, we would do well to
discourage it.
John has raised some excellent points. I tried to raise similar concerns
on dnsext, albeit much more clumsily, and was told "the code points are
already assigned, so go away."
There needs to be a happy medium, where getting new RRtypes assigned is
not as difficult as it used to be, but some thought is given to whether
or not the proposed solution is the best one, or even a good idea at
all. It's a hard problem to solve, and I don't claim to know the right
answer.
Doug