On 2013-05-21, at 15:08, Keith Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
> Without responding in detail to John's note, I'll say that I agree > substantially with the notion that the fact that someone manages to get a > protocol name or number registered, should not be any kind of justification > for standardization of a document that describes use of that name or number. If such a justification was inferred in my document, the problem is presumably my unclear language because no such justification was intended. (I am very happy for my document to be re-pointed at informational, incidentally, for which wheels are in motion. I will likely leave the normative language in, in the interests of improved interop, and see how far I get.) Code-points in the RRType registry are assigned by expert review (not simply by "filling out a template" as someone suggested earlier). If the suggestion is that the standards track is not available for any work that involves a code point that was assigned early, then I wonder what process is imagined for any future DNS work which aims at the standards track. Joe
