IANA considerations and IETF Consensus

[Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>]

At 5:22 PM +0200 6/12/07, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I'm not sure whether I agree with your proposal or not, but I think
> the most concrete way forward would be a proposal for specific
> wording for draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis, which
> Harald left on my plate and I left for Russ.

This goes beyond just rewording the IANA Considerations document. It 
requires WGs to actually understand the interoperability issues John 
brings up. There are plenty of places where a WG has required "IETF 
Consensus" where "RFC published" would be just fine, but they chose 
"IETF Consensus" because it sounded better and "this related WG just 
used it in their spec so we should too". It would be great if WGs 
would start looking at the IANA registry as something that will 
promote interoperability of their specs, not as an enforcement 
mechanism for controlling extensions (except where the protocol was 
mis-designed to have too small of a namespace for robust 
extensibility).

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf