--On Monday, 22 October, 2007 11:04 -0400 Sam Hartman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> I do not believe the IESG should approve this IANA
> registration unless there is community support to do so.
> I think the argument that we should publish this document
> as-is for the record makes no sense to me. If we want to
> document an approach so that it can be preserved as an
> archival record, then remove the IANA registration, note the
> document specifies no code point and note that it is being
> published to document an approach that did not achieve
> consensus.
>
> We should publish this document if we believe that it is
> reasonable for people to use this protocol on the Internet and
> wish to enable that.
Given that this is a protocol document, and that there appears
to be no substantive experiment to be performed, I believe that
this is an argument for Proposed Standard --possibly with a
comment about the IPR situation in an appendix to the RFC -- or
no publication at all. Even publication as Informational in
order to inform, and perhaps warn, people about something that
is being used does not meet the test of "believe that it is
reasonable for people to use ... and wish to enable that.
I don't know what position that would lead me to as to whether
or not it should be published, but that simple choice does
appear to me to be the logical conclusion.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
