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

Reply via email to