Re: [ietf-smtp] draft-freed-smtp-limits

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Sunday, August 6, 2023 18:36 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> If this is a model that we think might be useful for other
>> future  registries to follow
> 
> 
> I think that having two registries confuses tasks and meaning,
> and makes it more effort to get registered and ambiguous to
> use.

While 5321bis (through -19) allows for the possibility of two
registries (following some of the provisional/permanent splits)
there is nothing in that draft that requires anything more than
a single registry with a flag that indicates which option was
chosen.
>...

> Making registration effort higher makes it more likely people
> won't bother to register.

And that was exactly what drove the formation of the hybrid
model.  

> The confusion of goals is thinking that there is benefit in
> conflating registration with quality control.  There isn't.
> (Well, almost never and certainly not in this case.)

It isn't "quality control".  It could be (and, back when
"Standards Track or..." was first specified for those
registries, was), about genuine interest on the part of would-be
registrants for getting input and suggestions from the
community.  I've just looked through a number of early media
type registrations from long ago; many of them would have been
much worse -- requiring new keywords, registrations, and
documents somewhere-- had they not gone through the
standardization process.

>...

   john