-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/09/2012 10:04 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Nico" == Nico Williams <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Nico> The idea of leaking implementation details into the registry
> Nico> and/or its registration rules makes me gag.
>
> I hear your frustration because you'd like to keep a clean orderly
> registration. I feel happy about the registration I proposed
> because I think it avoids leaking com_err details.
>
> I chose to reserve codes above 255 because I'm concerned we may
> need/want an IETF review range or may decide that specification
> required is too loose for the future. My intent was to provide a
> registration process that was flexible while acknoowledging that
> we don't understand what policy we may want years from now.
>
> How do you feel about this registration process?
The only question I have is that since this is a pretty scarce resource
we might want specification required + expert review and give the expert
pool explicit review instructions that we are only looking for a "is not
crazy"-check.
I'm guessing that you don't want to introduce a high bar of entry so as
to encourage innovation. If so, I concur but we might want to raise the
bar just a little bit so that nobody eats up the 127 error codes with a
cleverly crafted cronjob+xml2rfc.
Cheers Leif
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk9a99oACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZndzIACfenFIdNau69svFTjcKOEZLtwY
VpQAn2pzgCcSeppMQwA1zh3XoSo+gB2v
=Tdsz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
