RE: What's the value of specification consistency?

"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com> Fri, 08 July 2005 15:13 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DquXc-0008AJ-Gi; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:13:24 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DquXa-00089V-1Y for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:13:22 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14686 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:13:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from colibri.verisign.com ([65.205.251.74]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dquyv-00072y-SG for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:41:41 -0400
Received: from mou1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (mailer1.verisign.com [65.205.251.34]) by colibri.verisign.com (8.13.1/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j68FDDg7010380; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:13:13 -0700
Received: from MOU1WNEXMB04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.25.13.157]) by mou1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:13:13 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:13:12 -0700
Message-ID: <198A730C2044DE4A96749D13E167AD372503C3@MOU1WNEXMB04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Thread-Topic: What's the value of specification consistency?
Thread-Index: AcVQ2py3rPHqOoMbTKeoW1pCzoQ5fQy8/mqA
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
To: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, ietf@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jul 2005 15:13:13.0329 (UTC) FILETIME=[8F29FE10:01C583CF]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc:
Subject: RE: What's the value of specification consistency?
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> Note that this is not purely hypothetical; I asked the same 
> question of the IESG in a comment on draft-ietf-pkix-pkixrep-03.txt:
> 
> >For draft-ietf-impp-srv-04, we required an IANA maintained registry 
> >that allowed someone to map _im._bip to a specification of how _bip 
> >used SRV records.  Seems very similar, in that PKIXREP will actually 
> >map to different using protocols like OCSP, LDAP, or HTTP; 
> these aren't 
> >just transports, like tcp or udp, they have different syntax (and 
> >frankly the use of HTTP for this means a convention at a 
> level even SRV 
> >can't handle).

In that particular case the consistency was utterly irrelevant.

XKMS already defines SRV prefixes that are not IANA registered at all.
 
If you make it too difficult for people to get code points registered
they are simply going to define them themselves.





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf