Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> > I think the strategic media content threat is from bad media types, not
> bad
> > registrations.  By bad media types, I mean bad technologies that get into
> a
> > position of market leverage.  And we can't do anything about them.

> Exactly, and that's my point: having the registrations is the important
> point.  Not allowing registrations is not likely to prevent usage.  If
> someone wants to start using a silly, ill-advised status code, with a poor
> definition, they can and will do so whether we allow them to register it or
> not.  If it's really stupid, it won't get any uptake. If it catches on, we
> should have registered it.

> I think that we need to use more FCFS registrations, in general, and not
> have to have a designated expert (or worse, write new RFCs) for every
> registration in every registry.  For some it absolutely makes sense.  For
> media types, it's often hard to get the details right, and the expert
> review helps people along with that.  I don't think it makes sense for this
> particular one.

As I said before, if the consensus is for FCFS, I'm willing to go along since
the number of this is likely to be small and so is the risk.

				Ned