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
I see no value in deallocating code point spaces and a huge amount of
potential harm.
Except at the very lowest levels of the protocol stack (IP and BGP)
there is really no technical need for a namespace that is limited. We
do have some protocols that will come to a crisis some day but there
are
On Apr 25, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Except at the very lowest levels of the protocol stack (IP and BGP)
there is really no technical need for a namespace that is limited.
Arguable, but irrelevant since the reality is that historically many (most?)
protocols defined by the
I see no value in deallocating code point spaces and a huge amount of
potential harm.
It depends on the size of the space. I completely agree that if the space is
large - and that's almost always the case - then deallocating is going to be
somewhere between silly and very damaging.
+1
Deprecating a code point is very different from deallocating it which
implies that it is going to be given out again in the future. Last
thing I want is a used code point.
I agree that avoiding multiple allocations is also a function of IANA,
but this is also something that argues for not
Not arguable in the fashion that you do. You seem to want to signal
disagreement without needing to actually argue a contrary case.
Cutting pieces out of someone's argument to make it look stupid is
itself a stupid trick.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:55 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
Ned,
On Apr 25, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
I see no value in deallocating code point spaces and a huge amount of
potential harm.
It depends on the size of the space.
Why? We're talking about completed experiments. I'm unclear I see any
particular value in having IANA staff
Ned,
On Apr 25, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
I see no value in deallocating code point spaces and a huge amount of
potential harm.
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
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
I have to admit to laughing out loud when I saw the IESG's announcement. Why?
What is more important: cycling out Experimental RFC's or promoting Proposed
Standards to Internet Standards?
Do I hear chirping in the audience? If we need to focus spare cycles
anywhere, I would offer progressing
: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments
Hi,
On Apr 19, 2012, at 22:31, Adrian Farrel wrote:
The IESG has been discussing how to tidy up after Experimental RFCs.
We have developed the following draft IESG statement. This does not
represent a change in process
Hi -
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
To: Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk
Cc: IETF Disgust ietf@ietf.org; IESG i...@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 2:04 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments
one aspect that may be missed is that there is a body
On 4/20/2012 6:36 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
What about the idea of requiring new Experimental documents to
include text that indicates when the experiment is to be considered
completed absent new work on it? Essentially, the document declares
a date by which the experiment is considered
Hi Adrian,
I do not support such a view, and it is not supported in a plain reading
of RFC 2026. What's more, it's not how researchers work. Researchers
naturally move on. If we are looking to further push researchers away
from the IRTF, this is a good way to do it.
Whether or not an
RFC 2026 says this about Experimental RFCs:
The Experimental designation typically denotes a specification that
is part of some research or development effort.
However, I do not believe that this is still typical. Authors come up with
ideas that they think are useful. If when the
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:17:46AM +0300, Yoav Nir wrote:
The Experimental designation typically denotes a specification that
is part of some research or development effort.
However, I do not believe that this is still typical. Authors come up with
ideas that they think are useful.
16 matches
Mail list logo
