Hi John, > […] Another part of the problem, sort > of mentioned and partially addressed in my draft, is that there > appear to be a growing number of topics in which there is tension > between the value of trying to be sure everything relevant gets > registers and getting high-quality review and engagement.
I think that a two-tiered system (permanent/provisional, the one your draft proposes, the recommended flag) generally is the best answer to this problem. Not sure there is a one-size-fits-all here that could go into the BCP. > For those > reasons and, I gather, others with less sweeping possible > implications, it seems clear that RFC 8126 is in serious need of > reexamination and revision. My draft specifically did not want to wait for such a grand “second systems syndrome” draft to be developed. I’d rather do incremental steps. Once we have taken a few of them, we might do an editorial round and merge them into a bis. Litigating all open issues at once plus trying to achieve editorial perfection is not what I’d want us to aim at. > Unfortunately, at least as I understand it, a draft revision for > community discussions was promised over two years ago and has been > promised and/or requested by various ADs several times since. The > draft has not appeared and, if progress is being made, I, at least, > have seen no sign of it: certainly there has been no I-D. Right. Let’s not get mired in such an effort. > p.s. to save some reading, at least until it is necessary, your > comment and my draft are about the same idea: taking two well-known > registration policies and combining them in a way that meets a > particular set of needs. Note there the are different ways to “combine”. My draft is a conjunction (logical AND). Other approaches are a disjunction (logical OR), potentially with a semantically meaningful indication in the registration which path was taken. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org