Re: IANA registration constraints (was: Re: Withdrawing sponsorship...)

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Tuesday, June 12, 2007 08:26 -0700 Dave Crocker 
<dcrocker at bbiw.net> wrote:

> I think the incremental suggestion, here, translates into
> permitting the IESG to attach a comment to an IANA
> registration entry, much as it can for an Independent RFC
> document submission?
>
> I think that's a pretty reasonable idea.

Yes.   For this case and others, comments --especially comments 
that actually say something, rather than denying knowledge or 
making assertions about lack of review that aren't true -- 
impress me as a far better idea than denying registration or 
trying to deny publication.

Again, there may be exceptions, but I think denial cases should 
require fairly strong (and public) justification.  In the 
general case, I believe the Internet is better off if even the 
most terrible of ideas is well-documents and registered --with 
appropriate warnings and pointers-- if there is any appreciable 
risk that it will be deployed and seen in the wild.

If we have created a registration space sufficiently small that 
we are concerned that registration of parameters for bad ideas 
will cause scarcity problems, then that is a problem of our 
creation that we need to fix (and avoid in the future), not 
something that justifies bad long-term policy.

  john


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