--On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 13:32 +1000 Mark Andrews <marka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Closing the registry is not irreversable if it needs to be > reversed. It's not like we can forget that there were assigned > code points and anything that attempted to use those code > points would have to consider the fact that they were used at > one time. Actually, Mark, we very rarely close registries if there is any possibility of reopening them. We may raise the threshold for registration, etc. (in this case, new types already require standards action, which should make it adequately easy to head off bad or frivolous ideas), but closing is a big step. Telling implementers that they don't need to pay attention to the relevant codes and fields (and might even be able to use them for a different, even if private, purpose) is an even more serious step. But I'd like to ask that this discussion move up a level. My question was about what the WG considered and whether, in the light of those discussions, there was really justification to take the serious step of abandoning a facility and consensus on that justification. It seems to me that your responses have addressed different questions entirely: your opinion about alternate approaches in the earlier note and a suggestion about the possibility of reopening registries in this one. Because the questions I asked are tightly connected to what the WG discussed and on what basis the presumably-consensus decision was made, I would hope that I (and, more important, the IESG and the community) would hear from the WG Chairs and other participants, not only from someone who, coincidentally or not, is part of the same organization as the three authors of the draft (a draft that does not indicate the active participation of any other people or organizations by the presence of an Acknowledgments section). best regards, john