--On tirsdag, juni 28, 2005 07:39:35 -0400 John C Klensin <john@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
To preview what would otherwise be a discussion on the new I-D,
here we disagree, for two reasons:
(i) For some registrations, especially those for which
there are no alternate registration categories and where
unidentified use of mechanisms might lead to operational
problems, "IESG approval" may be appropriate, but IESG
non-approval must never mean "no, you can't register it".
Two examples of "refusal to register"..... and I don't think the
distinction between the IESG and a designated expert really matters in
order to discuss the principle.
1) The language tag reviewer (a designated expert) rejected the tag
"es-americas" after due debate on the ietf-languages mailing list.
(Debate led to the same functionality now being registered as "es-419".
That namespace also allows for use of "x-" names.)
2) The MIME type reviewer (another designated expert) has steadfastly
pushed back on attempts to use what's effectively content transfer
encodings as MIME types - the last example is the debate on "yEnc" in
USEFOR. (Here, too, x- names are allowed)
In both these cases, I think that the designated experts have been doing
their jobs.
I have no strong opinion about the IPv6 hop-by-hop header in question. But
I don't want to (effectively) remove the ability to refuse registration - I
think we'll pay a high price for that later.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf