Ned, On Apr 25, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Ned Freed wrote: >>>> I see no value in deallocating code point spaces >>> It depends on the size of the space. >> Why? > Because if you deallocate and reallocate it, there can be conflicts. Perhaps > you haven't noticed, but a lot of times people continue to use stuff that IETF > considers to be bad ideas, including but not limited to things we called > experiments at some point. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but no one was suggesting deallocating and reallocating anything that was in use. Or do you have a different interpretation of "if appropriate"? > And getting rid of information that people may need to get things to > interoperate seems to, you know, kinda go against some of our core principles. Sorry, where did anyone suggest getting rid of any "information that people may need to get things to interoperate" again? Or do you interpret moving a XML page from a web server into an informational RFC to be "getting rid" of information? I'll admit I find this thread bordering on the surreal with some fascinating kneejerk reactions. As far as I can tell, the only thing that was proposed was something to "encourage documentation of the conclusion of experiments" and "if appropriate, deprecate any IANA code points allocated for the experiment". Both of these seem like good things to me. This has somehow been translated into variously: a) a declaration about how research is done b) deletion and/or reallocation of "code point spaces" that people are using c) killing off successful protocols because they're documented in experimental not standards track rfcs d) violating "our core principles" e) process for the sake of process f) IANA being a control point for the Internet g) etc. Did I miss a follow-up message from the Inherently Evil Steering Group that proposed these sorts of things? Regards, -drc