On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 07:42:28AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> It sounds like Pete is saying "picking 2020 is complicated", so
> maybe the original idea ("until all other code points are used") is
> better.
>
> > Why do you think this all needs to be outlined in the draft? Why do
> > such rules (which are, after all, just destined for a registry) need
> > to be given a rationale?
>
> So that someone evaluating the document can understand the rationale
> for the decision points in the document. Switching to "until all
> other code points are used" is self-explaining.
In that case, I think the right answer is to do something along the
following lines:
1. Alter the relevant passage in section 2.1 as follows:
The description for assignment number 4 is changed to "Reserved".
The description for assignment number 9 is changed to "Reserved".
The description for assignment number 11 is changed to "Reserved".
2. Alter the new registry table in the same way.
3. Add a subsection 2.4, "Rationale for reserving assignments 4,
9, and 11", as follows:
Assignment numbers 4, 9, and 11 are believed to have been used
in software released on the Internet prior to the publication of this
memo, which is why they are hereby reserved. The assignments
were never requested of nor made by IANA.
The point of (3) is to make the reasoning clear and to make it clear
to future IETF participants that they could plausibly reuse those code
points after sufficient time had passed. (We have a problem in the
DNS of much of the reasoning being contained in our oral tradition,
and I'd like to break that cycle.)
How's that sound?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf