On March 17, 2021 at 12:25:25 PM, Les Ginsberg wrote: > > In the extreme case anyone can make use of the bits, through the ISE > > or a different SDO -- ideally we will be paying attention, but may > > not. Sure, a registry doesn't stop implementations from squatting on > > codepoints either (even inside the IETF), but at least people have to > > want to bypass the allocation rules. > > > > [Les:] When a specification says "all other bits are reserved, MUST be sent > as 0 and MUST be ignored on receipt", I do not see how anyone can assume they > can use them - nor why the existence of a registry would prevent such a > squatter from doing whatever they want outside of normal channels. > > Are you suggesting that normative statements in RFCs simply don’t mean > anything?
Not at all! The "MUST send as 0 and MUST ignore" text is normally used when the application of those bits has not been defined. If you define the use of one of the bits then you will obviously set/not ignore it, whether it has been defined in an ID/RFC or not. As I said, "a registry doesn't stop implementations from squatting on codepoints either (even inside the IETF), but at least people have to want to bypass the allocation rules." I don't know that you and I are getting anywhere. I know Robert also cares about this topic, I hope others do too. Alvaro. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
