Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050506004532.04dd5cb0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 01:26:22 +0200
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>,
	"Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <427A45CD.1060000@isi.edu>
References: <20050504202820.38C413BFF7C@berkshire.machshav.com>
	<427A45CD.1060000@isi.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: text suggested by ADs
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At 18:11 05/05/2005, Joe Touch wrote:
>Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> > In message <1115166744.5285.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Ralph 
> Droms writes
> >>So, without meaning any offense to the ADs, I suggest we lump random
> >>participants, WG members, doc editors and ADs together when the spec is
> >>reviewed - and ensure that all comments are published in the same forum
> >>and given appropriate weight based on technical merit, as supported by
> >>explanatory text when the comments are published.
> >
> > Then what?  How are the comments resolved?  Who makes the final
> > decision about whether or not a document has met certain standards?
>
>"Rough consensus and running code"
>
>Even at this level.

Unfortunately this is not always true. When a "best common practice" is 
imagined or a IANA registry created. They can have impact beyond repairs. 
This is why I underline how Ted Hardie's question and the answers to it are 
important.

Everyone can forgive and forget an RFC. No one can do that with a IANA 
registry or with the momentum induced in telling people the world uses to 
do something it does not. Once a registry has been created or a non 
existing practice endorsed on matter "A", on wrong premises or not, if the 
matter "A" does exist, we will have to live with it for ever.

The only possible "correction" would be to create a competing correct "A" 
registry or to turn to another "world" (this is propobly the main reason of 
the interest in ITU) and then to start an alt-root war, with most of the 
users using the wrong solution, due to the IANA prestige; and turning down 
the whole IANA if the recognise the problem.

If the matter is important, and if it concerns governments (the Internet 
R&D funders) the implications for the Internet stability and future can be 
totaly out of proportion with the "A" matter.

This is why I would propose that new IANA registries are accepted ad 
experimenda (for test) until confirmed by a standard: during that period a 
registry could have several "versions" (even opposing). And that best 
common practices document (except for the Internet standard process) give 
criteria to verify (when) they reached the "common" level.

The formula could be "roug consensus, running code, proven practice and 
used registry".

jfc






_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf