At 7:27 AM +0300 6/14/07, <Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think giving out codepoints freely would in many cases encourage having multiple (often half-baked) solutions to the same problem.
This is the crux of the issue. Does the IETF want to control bad ideas through the IETF process *and* the IANA registry, or just the IETF process? You are proposing the former, I am proposing the latter. I trust that the IETF process works fine and doesn't need a backup crutch from IANA. I also trust that developers who look in the IANA registry and see four entries, one of which is an RFC and three of which are URLs to individuals and corporate web sites, to be able to make the right decision about what they want to implement.
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.
Fully agree. But we're not talking about lowering the bar to publishing RFCs, only to registering codepoints.
(And IMHO that would not always be interop-neutral.)
Why not? As long as the reader of the IANA registry can ascertain which codepoint owner is at a particular level, how would that affect interop?
--Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf