On 1/19/2016 5:47 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On 1/19/2016 11:02 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >>>>> When the entry is textual, even if the character set is limited to >>>>> US-ASCII, then that scope is considerable so I would argue that any such >>>>> registry should have someone keeping an eye on it, to query, perhaps >>>>> reject, proposed entries that might be intended to subvert, to malign, >>>>> to breach IPR and so on. I would argue this as the starting point for >>>>> all registries where the entry is textual and otherwise unconstrained. >>> >>> That is a good point. And a corner case that we don't seem to have >>> faced to date. Though I can imagine we might end up doing so in the >>> future. >> >> We actually do review SRV requests for exactly this sort of thing and >> recommend alternatives to the applicant (which they typically either >> accept or suggest their own alternatives), although I don't know what >> would happen if the applicant insisted otherwise. > > At the end of the day, if it is a protocol code point, all that should > matter to the protocol is uniqueness rather than the value itself. > Unless of course the protocol is already in use or whatever. That's true, but there are other considerations that applicants don't always take into account - e.g., clarity, potential for confusion, etc. > Having been in one or two registry businesses, (PKI, VeriSign), I tend > to think of preventing people registering 'bad names' as an > aspirational goal. I don't recall "bad" names coming up, FWIW. More like "names that could be better". Joe