On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 17:49:54 -1000 David Conrad <drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: > > I agree with Ned. The main purpose of the registry should be to > > document what is out there, not to act as a gatekeeper. Even when > > a protocol is not a full standard, having a public documentation > > is useful. Documentation enables filtering, monitoring, even > > debugging. > > This is not how IANA staff have been directed to maintain the IETF > registries. That is not how IANA staff has been directed to maintain *some* IETF registries. Typically, the RFC that creates a registry specifies the conditions for it. It may be "IETF consensus", or a whole host of other options; see RFC 5226 for more details. The issue here is two-fold: what are the specified conditions for this particular registry, and was the decision of the TLS WG correct when it specified them? Christian's note suggests other code point design strategies that don't run into the "limited number of small integers" problem. Very true -- and those strategies are explicitly recognized by 5226. There may be a problem here, but it's not the general IANA problem, it's the specific decision made once upon a time. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf