Re: Making QUIC less constraining for innovation

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

Martin,

I'm not familiar with the RFCs and the policies here, so it took me a
little while of thinking to understand your proposal. Now that I do, I like
it.

That said, there's one thing I'd change. According to RFC 8126, Standards
Action is limited to Standards-track RFCs and BCPs, and I'd like to see
Experimental included in this space as well. I think RFC Required is what
I'd prefer.

- jana

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 2:41 PM Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 24 Oct 2019, at 4:21 pm, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019, at 15:33, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >> Another way of reducing friction is to require less of registrants, and
> >> to use tools familiar to them. With my Expert hat on, I've been
> >> experimenting with using Github repositories to manage registries;
> >> e.g., see <https://github.com/link-relations/registry>. Doing
> something
> >> like this might be worth considering (and I'm working with IANA to make
> >> it easier).
> >
> > Do you think that that process is mature enough to have QUIC use it?  If
> it is, then I would be supportive of lowering the embarkation ramp further.
>
> It's not a process so much as an alternate path (to using a mailing list).
> I think it's worth considering -- but the nice part is that you don't have
> to specify anything, just leave it up to the experts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>