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

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

At 12:10 PM +0300 6/15/07, <Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com> wrote:
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> >  Why not? As long as the reader of the IANA registry can ascertain
> >  which codepoint owner is at a particular level, how would that affect
> >  interop?
>
> Being able to ascertain what the level is isn't enough; you also
> need to know (and more importantly, care) about the differences
> in the levels :-)
>
> I'd say there are lot of implementors who don't really care that
> much for the distinctions between an individual Internet-Draft,
> a WG draft, an Experimental RFC, or Proposed Standard RFC.

Fully agree. Where we disagree is whether or not the IETF should do 
something about that more than just saying what our levels are and 
what they mean. I believe that needs to be sufficient, and our 
energies are best spent on our standards efforts.

> But if only the latter two (or three) would have proper numbers
> in them (instead of TBD-BY-IANA), that would send a clear message
> that "this not ready yet"... (but of course, this doesn't always
> work; if there's strong enough pressure to implement, people
> will "invent" some numbers there)

Enforcement of our standards process by hiding things that are 
outside of the process seems both dishonest to, and disrespectful of, 
typical developers. That does not lead them to the type of 
interoperability we want.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

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





: <p062408a7c298664c6c4e at [10.20.30.108]>
In-Reply-To: <B356D8F434D20B40A8CEDAEC305A1F240442B906 at esebe105.NOE.Nokia.com>
References: <tslveduxfp2.fsf at mit.edu><B356D8F434D20B40A8CEDAEC305A1F24043F6B4D at esebe10
	5.NOE.Nokia.com><466E959D.80601 at cisco.com>
	<466EA98D.9010401 at dcrocker.net><D2C66431AE5E7F688AB7DA5C at [192.168.0.3]>
	<466EBA4C.30702 at gmail.com> <7FF1D23005633ACE8A337485 at [192.168.0.3]>
	<B356D8F434D20B40A8CEDAEC305A1F24043F713B at esebe105.NOE.Nokia.com>
	<p06240867c295bd0747b6 at [10.20.30.108]>
	<B356D8F434D20B40A8CEDAEC305A1F24043F75DA at esebe105.NOE.Nokia.com>
	<p06240882c29703c6e73e at [10.20.30.108]>
	<B356D8F434D20B40A8CEDAEC305A1F240442B906 at esebe105.NOE.Nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:56:32 -0700
To: <ietf at ietf.org>
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2
Subject: RE: IANA registration constraints (was: Re: Withdrawing 
sponsorship...)
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org

At 12:10 PM +0300 6/15/07, <Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com> wrote:
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> >  Why not? As long as the reader of the IANA registry can ascertain
> >  which codepoint owner is at a particular level, how would that affect
> >  interop?
>
> Being able to ascertain what the level is isn't enough; you also
> need to know (and more importantly, care) about the differences
> in the levels :-)
>
> I'd say there are lot of implementors who don't really care that
> much for the distinctions between an individual Internet-Draft,
> a WG draft, an Experimental RFC, or Proposed Standard RFC.

Fully agree. Where we disagree is whether or not the IETF should do 
something about that more than just saying what our levels are and 
what they mean. I believe that needs to be sufficient, and our 
energies are best spent on our standards efforts.

> But if only the latter two (or three) would have proper numbers
> in them (instead of TBD-BY-IANA), that would send a clear message
> that "this not ready yet"... (but of course, this doesn't always
> work; if there's strong enough pressure to implement, people
> will "invent" some numbers there)

Enforcement of our standards process by hiding things that are 
outside of the process seems both dishonest to, and disrespectful of, 
typical developers. That does not lead them to the type of 
interoperability we want.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

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