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

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

>    I believe I have asked about the costs and benefits of each approach 
    before, and I have never seen you or anybody else respond to that request.

I believe this is not a question that can be answered. I can only, yet again, point out that I have seen multiple experiments in TLS and DNS and they worked fine.

>    You have also not said anything about the long-tail cleanup of your 
    approach.

There is no long-tail cleanup. Using the experimental area is for experiments. There are no registry actions. Experiments often happen among one, or maybe a few, parties. If they want to put their code into production for interoperable implementations, they have to document the protocol and change the number that they use. If they quietly stop their experiment, that's fine. They don't have to tell anyone what they are doing. Perhaps the NTF penciled-in registry could be used to track such experiments. But it's not necessary, and no harm will be done if not.

    >>     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 :)

>    Please be serious.

I am serious.

    > The other difference is that the NTF list will assign numbers in the standard space, and the WG doesn't want that.

>    Some of the WG does.

To the extent that the mailing list reflects the WG feelings, using "some" instead of "I" is not clear. Please avoid ambiguities.

>    And I'm not totally clear on what you mean when you say "will assign 
    numbers."  Please be complete and clear with what you want to communicate.

Sorry, when talking about an IANA registry, I thought it was obvious.  Since your organization maintains a "penciled-in" registry I thought you knew. Someone adds an extension to NTP. They write up an internet draft and post it, or the work is done in another SDO and the standard is freely available. They approach IANA and say "I would like a number for my extension." The designated experts read the draft, see if it is complete enough to implement, etc., and say "okay, you can have 0xXXXX" and IANA updates the web page. If this is not clear to you, I suggest that you read RFC 5226.

>    I don't care where the registry lives.  I have long mentioned the 
    "penciled in" registry, and Karen and others have said "There's no real 
    way to do that with IANA".  Are you now saying that IANA will allow this?

No I am not saying that.  Please see my previous messages on this, and the "no long-tail" paragraph above. I am sorry if you still do not understand, I've reached the limits on my ability to explain.

>    Does anybody really think rough consensus will produce a high-quality 
    result?

It's worked for the IETF for the past 30 years. :)  Sure there have been mistakes, but overall, the process works.

>    I would be REALLY happy if the folks who think NTP should be taken in 
    backward-incompatible directions and be driven by rough consensus would 
    start a new WG and use a new port and come up with their results in a 
    way that didn't destroy the existing NTP framework.

Interesting observation, and perhaps a clue to your motivation, but I don't see how this draft helps that come about.