Re: [Ntp] Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries

["Salz, Rich" <[e-mail]>]

>    I know this, and I believe the approach used by your proposal is wrong.

You are the only one who has posted against an experimental range, so you're in the rough here.

>  If folks don't "register" their choice of numbers, there can be conflicts.

But only with experiments, and only in the experimental area. And as you have pointed out the number of expansion fields has been pretty small over the years, which further reduces the chance of conflict. But I think the main point is that experiments *cannot conflict* with standards work.

>    NTF has maintained a "penciled in" registry for folks to test out EFs, 

So you are okay with a registry, you just don't like that it's in IANA and not at NTF :) The other difference is that the NTF list will assign numbers in the standard space, and the WG doesn't want that.  Internet registries and Internet-scale experiments have changed a great deal in the way people use them, perform them, etc. A private web page separate from IANA is not the way things are done any more. What do you do if NTF has a "penciled in" value that the WG assigned? Does the WG have to check with NTF before doing that?

>    So I still see problems with what you have described

That's okay.  Rough consensus after all. And BTW, working cleanly with an unadopted draft wasn't a goal of this draft.

    > We have seen problems before with autokey implementation compared to documentation.

>    As I have repeatedly said, that's because autokey implemented/used the 
    V1 header layout and the IANA table documented the v2 layout.

I am not blaming any party. And again, having these things documented *by the party interested in the implementation*, and having designated experts to review, WILL make this much less likely in the future.

    > Making the public section of the registry "Specification Required" prevents that.

>    In theory I agree with you.  And in theory, theory and practice are the 
    same.  But in practice, they are not.

Shrug.  I've been a TLS designated expert for years and it works. I've helped people register MIME types, and it works.

>    I have not seen any refutation of my observation.
 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/rYrGnLSeP_ag1hILQTLjIUMOrmo/  It included several examples.  You quoted, and said "makes sense where appropriate." The WG thinks it is appropriate here, and you don't.