Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dear Scott,
RFCs are made to be adapted to needs. The question should be "what do we want?". I think the response is "to experiment". This means that every registry should include an ad-experimendam area. If the experimentation is OK it will permit to document the allocation of a code point without interrupting the experimentation. If the experimenation fails, then who cares? 200 mails on "IESG approval" saved each time.

The main characteristics of an experimentation should be: community oriented (not private), reversible, not affecting non participants operations, no acquired rights without community approval, limited scope in time and space. Documentation is of no interest until it succeeds. This should not be confused with a private area: private usage is to be protected/separated from experimentation.
jfc


At 00:03 30/06/2005, Scott Bradner wrote:
> I agree that this would be a reasonable process, but wouldn't that be
> "IETF Consensus" (an entirely separate choice in RFC 2434 from IESG
> Approval)?


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]