On 1/19/2016 5:47 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On 1/19/2016 11:02 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
When the entry is textual, even if the character set is limited to
US-ASCII, then that scope is considerable so I would argue that any such
registry should have someone keeping an eye on it, to query, perhaps
reject, proposed entries that might be intended to subvert, to malign,
to breach IPR and so on. I would argue this as the starting point for
all registries where the entry is textual and otherwise unconstrained.
That is a good point. And a corner case that we don't seem to have
faced to date. Though I can imagine we might end up doing so in the
future.
We actually do review SRV requests for exactly this sort of thing and
recommend alternatives to the applicant (which they typically either
accept or suggest their own alternatives), although I don't know what
would happen if the applicant insisted otherwise.
At the end of the day, if it is a protocol code point, all that should
matter to the protocol is uniqueness rather than the value itself.
Unless of course the protocol is already in use or whatever.
That's true, but there are other considerations that applicants don't
always take into account - e.g., clarity, potential for confusion, etc.
Having been in one or two registry businesses, (PKI, VeriSign), I tend
to think of preventing people registering 'bad names' as an
aspirational goal.
I don't recall "bad" names coming up, FWIW. More like "names that could
be better".
Joe