Paul Hoffman wrote: > > At 12:08 PM +0300 6/13/07, <Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >The hurdle of getting IETF consensus and publishing an RFC does > >weed out many crazy proposals that, in all fairness, would not > >have made the Internet work better, and would not have promoted > >interoperability. > > It does not need to promote interoperability; being interop-neutral > is sufficient. How does giving a codepoint to someone with a crazy > (and let's say even dangerous to the Internet) idea hurt > interoperability? It seems to be interop-neutral. I think giving out codepoints freely would in many cases encourage having multiple (often half-baked) solutions to the same problem. To give one example we both worked on: I think it's good we didn't allocate codepoints to all the individual MOBIKE protocol proposals (mine, Tero's, Francis's), and instead were "forced" to work together and converge on a single protocol. Probably the "market" would have eventually picked one of them as the winner, but meanwhile, the situation would IMHO not have been interop-neutral. (And working together also produced a better protocol than any of the individual drafts were.) I'm not saying that this particular cooperation would not have happened with less strict IANA policies -- but I do believe that if the bar for getting codepoints and publishing an RFC would be significantly lower than today, we would have a much larger number of poorly concieved and overlapping extensions to various IETF protocols. (And IMHO that would not always be interop-neutral.) However: I do agree with John Klensin's statement that "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." Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf