Re: [art] Against BCP 190

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 23/07/2019 16:46, Adam Roach wrote:
> 
> The purpose of BCP 190 has never been to provide advantages to protocol
> designers. That is, in fact, the opposite of its purpose. The purpose of
> BCP 190 is to provide protections to the URI namespace and the people
> who own its governance (e.g., domain owners) against protocol designers.

Right. The difference with trans is that there aren't a mass
of domain owners involved here, just a tiny tightly curated
list of them and they're basically the ones who designed the
protocol (give or take). There is no harm accruing here that
I can see.

The "MUST NOT" in BCP190 2.3 is too strongly stated, so yes
adding some sensible caveats there would be good. I hope that
if the conclusion is that there is consensus to let trans ignore
that omission in the BCP, that fixing the BCP does not become
a pre-requisite for what is (as Melinda explained) a spec that's
already been significantly delayed via IETF process.

S.