--On Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:58 -0700 Bob Braden
<braden@xxxxxxx> wrote:
John Klensin,
You wrote:
*>
*> I think real specifications of what the requested
parameter will *> mean and be used for are important. I
think there is a *> difference between registering a
parameter for a non-standard *> specification that is
already deployed and in successful use and *> registering
one for a wild idea by one person.
I would note that the purveyors of a "non-standard
specification that is already deployed and in successful use"
must have somehow obtained their own number assignment without
the IANA's help, or this situation could not arise. And
before that specification was successfully deployed, it may
well have been "a wild idea".
There seems to be a logical disconnect here. What am I
missing?
In the instance at hand, the fact that this document was
approved for publication on the standards track, and a parameter
value allocated on that basis, before the IPR issues came up and
the approval (and parameter value) were withdrawn.
In the more general case, yes, we are putting ourselves in a
position that encourages inventing parameter values and
squatting on them.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf