--On Friday, March 06, 2009 14:08 -0800 Kurt Zeilenga
<Kurt.Zeilenga@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> Okay, so we're being overly anal here. Like we can control
> the world of protocol extensions.
Kurt,
While I agree (and strongly so), there is lots of precedent for
the IESG rejecting parameter registrations because of distaste
for a particular extension, presumably in the hope that "no
registered value" will imply "the unpopular extension idea goes
away". From a process standpoint, there is no difference
between "we won't let you have a value because there are
identified serious technical flaws and risks with the extension"
and "the IESG finds you and/or your proposal unattractive and
cannot determine that there is community consensus to the
contrary, so you don't get the value".
Of course, if the requester is at all determined, denying the
value assignment rarely works. Instead, it leads to squatting
on parameter values which, in any sort of limited space, is a
sure path to interoperability problems with applications that
use the values differently and may have registered them. And
that is probably just a long way of saying "like we can
control...".
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf