RE: IANA registration constraints (was: Re: Withdrawing sponsorship...)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



It seems to me that the IANA registry could provide more influence for the IETF if run as Paul suggests.

So I go to the code page for the USELESS cipher. It tells me that the cipher has not been approved by the IETF, has not been endorsed by any professional bodies and is not an IETF standard.

We would at last have a mechanism to trump the usual claim that an internet draft has been submitted so please consider me as good as being a standard.

Or another organization could run the registry.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:46 AM
> To: Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: IANA registration constraints (was: Re: 
> Withdrawing sponsorship...)
> 
> 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 mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]