RE: Impending publication: draft-iab-considerations-02.txt

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

I was not passing judgement on the guidance presented in
draft-tsvarea-sipchange. I was pointing out that a document
cited as a reference in draft-iab-considerations is
effectively contradicted. (My proposed solution was not
intended as an endorsement; it was based on what appeared
to be the most expedient way to address the inconsistency,
giving precedence to the more established document).

I also am not going to make a statement about your comments
themselves; however, I suggest that they would be most
productively directed to the authors of the draft-tsvarea-sipchange
document.

In any case, I assert that there is an inconsistency, and
that a prudent course of action would involve reaching
consensus on these issues before either document is published
as an RFC.

/a

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Elz [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 11:39
> To: Adam Roach
> Cc: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'
> Subject: Re: Impending publication: draft-iab-considerations-02.txt 
> 
> 
>     Date:        Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:11:01 -0500 
>     From:        Adam Roach <[e-mail]>
>     Message-ID:  
> <[e-mail]
> csoft.com>
> 
>   | On the topic of "P-" headers, however, there is still 
> guidance that
>   | such extensions require, at a minimum, publication as an RFC:
>   | 
>   |   "[A]ny P-header used outside of a very restricted 
> research or teaching
>   |    environment (such as a student lab on implementing 
> extensions) MUST
>   |    meet those requirements and MUST be documented in an 
> RFC and be IANA
>   |    registered."
> 
> This kind of text in any RFC (or other publication) is no more than an
> attempt at extortion.   Nothing published in an RFC can 
> possibly constrain
> what anyone else does, anywhere.   Believing otherwise is ludicrous.
> 
> We can constrain our own behaviour, since that's what we 
> control, so we
> could (assuming that we believe IANA is part of "us") specify 
> that IANA
> must not register a header unless it is documented in an RFC.   But we
> cannot tell people that they're not allowed to use such 
> things.   Or more
> correctly, of course we can tell them that, but without any 
> expectation
> that many of them will take us seriously.
> 
> Whether or not the IETF decides that it should adopt work 
> done by others
> (even just as much as re-publishing it for information) will 
> be something
> that should get decided on a case by case basis (or as agreed 
> with other
> bodies in appropriate circumstances), but pretending that the 
> IETF is the
> supreme lord of the universe, and everyone else must bow down to the
> pronouncements in RFCs (even in cases where IETF created technology is
> under discussion) is laughable.
> 
> kre
>