On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:02:11AM -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Oh, great...
>
> As Harald noted, draft-klensin-iana-reg-policy is pretty prescriptive
> about saying that if we're in conservation mode for a registry, we
> also need to be in evasive-action mode ("how do we get more room in
> this registry?").
>
> If we are already in conservation mode on IPv6 options, given that it
> has taken quite some time to even get to the point that we're at with
> IPv6, the proposal in this draft seems entirely appropriate in the
> case under discussion.
Oh, great. And so obviously, the IAB was right before the great Kobe
revolution, and we should have thrown out IP in favor of variable
length headers ala OSI so we can put in OID's everywhere, making it
hard to quickly and efficiently parse network headers in hardware.
But at least all registries would be infinitely expandable, with no
need to conserve registry space.
NOT!
People seem to be forgetting that the 'E' in IETF standards
"Engineering", and that infinitely expandable registries in order to
obviate the need for responsible registration of code points may not
necessarily be the highest priority consideration, outranking all
others....
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf