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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On 6/7/2012 12:59 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
>> I think this is a good idea.  I think FCFS would also be adequate, and
>> encourage the WG to use that.  The reason is that it's far better to
>> encourage people to register status codes that they want to use, and not
>> to put barriers in the way.  The usual reluctance to use FCFS is concern
>> that people will register a bunch of garbage.  In fact, (1) this hasn't
>> ever happened and (2) IANA would ask the IESG to intervene if they got a
>> suspicious flood of registration requests.
>>
>
> +1
>
> The justification for expert is "quality control".  The side-effect is a
> disincentive to register.
>
> Do we make it easier and let in some cruft along with the good stuff or do
> we make it harder and keep out some good stuff because registering is too
> much hassle?
>
> I think the latter is the better choice, because the cruft doesn't
> actually hurt anything and there's a very, very large namespace that can
> afford to be wasted.
>
> As Barry notes, the actual 'threat' is quite small and the damage from its
> being realized is also negligible.
>
>
OK, I'll take it down to FCFS for the version that goes to the IESG.
Unless there's objection I'll try to get that posted this weekend, which is
about half way through WGLC.

Thanks,
-MSK