Every protocol begins as a wild idea by one person. So I don't accept John's point. Forcing groups together is not necessarily a good idea. The counter example I would give is SAML, WS-Trust and OpenID. Merging protocols prematurely can be a mistake. The groups have to be speaking the same language for a start. Requiring a merger for standards process is a good idea, usually, but standards are not always the best approach. If you don't yet understand the problem space you should not be wasting peoples time on the standards circuit. > -----Original Message----- > From: Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:28 AM > To: paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: IANA registration constraints (was: Re: > Withdrawingsponsorship...) > > 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf