Re: [apps-discuss] draft-saintandre-xdash-considered-harmful-01

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

Thomson, Martin wrote:
> A provisional registration would be similar to IP-R.  The only different is that two people can compete for the same name with IP-R; provisional registrations still have exclusivity.

Actually, for message headers they don't:

[[
    The main requirements for a header field to be included in the
    provisional repository are that it MUST have a citable specification,
    and there MUST NOT be a corresponding entry (with same field name and
    protocol) in the **permanent** header field registry.
]]
-- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-4.2 (note my ** emphasis).

>>> * An standards track registration - or something similarly strong -
>>> causes existing registrations for the same name get swept away.  The
>>> review process can determine if this is appropriate.
>> Fun. :)
> 
> Can you think of a better reason?

FWIW:
[[
    When a new entry is recorded in the permanent message header field
    registry, IANA will remove any corresponding entries (with the same
    field name and protocol) from the provisional registry.
]]
-- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-4.3

(The main point here, as I recall, was that the provisional registry can't be 
used to make an unsupported "land grab" on the namespace:  community review trumps.

#g
--