Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

FWIW, I agree with Stephen’s mail on this topic.

> I don't see much game playing here of interest. The fact is that
> implementers do not start by reading the IANA registries. We had
> a long discussion on that between the IESG and some authors of a
> Diameter RFC a few years ago where the author concerned (Glen Zorn)
> convinced me at least that updating RFC text is basically far more
> of interest than updating IANA registries.
> 
> Many people write code that uses libraries and don't even see RFCs.
> Fewer by far have to start from an RFC to write their code. The
> number of people who actually consult the IANA protocol parameter
> registries is a yet again much smaller set. (Given that the protocol
> parameter registry entries alone are not sufficient to implement in
> almost all cases and that RFCs that specify protocols almost always
> contain enough that one doesn't have to go looking at an IANA
> registry to implement.)
> 
> The set of people who start anything from consulting an IANA registry
> is probably almost infinitesimally small, and I would say is
> basically IESG members, designated experts and IANA staffers, none
> of whom are going to be in the least confused by any trademark
> crapology.
> 
> So a lot of the concern expressed about potential downsides here is
> just misplaced as the real source of protocol parameters used by
> developers is the RFC series and not IANA anything.