since IETF seeks interoperability above all, a non-exclusive registry
would serve no purpose.
To me, it's a choice between playing King Canute and documenting reality.
These are mnemonic names visible to users, which makes them different from
nearly all existing IANA registries. They're also unusual that each one
is likely to be implemented by its own hack, often one that doesn't use IP
addresses or TCP or UDP for transport, so that it's far from obvious that
even if the names were different, multiple *.alt hacks could coexist on
the same computer. (This is not a proposal to invent a SOCKS plugin API.)
If two people want to use sex.alt or whatever, they're going to do it. We
can close our eyes and pretend that only the one who sent in the first I-D
exists, or we can keep a real list that documents the software that people
are using.
For the most part, I expect that people will look in the registry (or
registries) to see what's already in use and pick names that don't
collide, since life is easier that way. But if they do collide, I'd
rather know the bad news up front rather than depending on folklore to
know which of the names in the registry work and which ones collide with
things you have to find out about somewhere else.
In case it's not obvious, FCFS does require some minimal level of info so
people can find out more, but the harder we make it to register, the more
likely people are to distribute software and not tell us about it.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
