Harald,
The presence of the "X-" option, and the fact that it can be
used among consenting parties without loss of function, puts
both of the cases you mention into the area of "refusal means a
different choice of category" not "refusal encourages the
behavior to occur without proper identification". See the I-D
when it is posted.
john
--On Tuesday, 28 June, 2005 14:37 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> --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.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf