John - as a concrete example of the problem you describe, the dhc WG perceived that there was a looming problem with exhaustion of the DHCP option code space. So, we wrote up a procedure (RFC 2939) requiring documentation of new options in an RFC, implying technical review by the dhc WG. Now, we find a significant number of option codes in the private code space (128-254), which have been unofficially appropriated for use in shipping products. To clean up the mess, the dhc WG has enlarged the available option code space and is working through a process of identifying and registering the unofficially appropriated option codes (RFC 3942). I'll ask the dhc WG to review RFC 2939 in light of the expanded option code space and our experience with unofficial appropriation. - Ralph On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 06:32 -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > [...] > But, for the first, I'm getting more and more anxious about > rejecting a registration request. That is largely because, if > the applicant still feels that the idea is a good one, we've got > lots of unfortunate experience that he or she will just ignore > the registration requirement, squat on a code, and proceed as if > the allocation had been made. Worse, that applicant may not come > back and ask the next time, depriving the community of a > heads-up and the applicant of potentially-valuable IETF review. > [...] _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf