> 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. > > (For that matter, just because a document describes "protocol data > objects" is also not a justification for standardization of that document.) > > More generally, IETF standardization should not be a rubber stamp. And > to the extent that people have that notion, we would do well to > discourage it.
please leave me off the cc:s of your deep discussions of process and who has the prerogative to do what. i am merely reviewing the draft for content, not drm and ietf sausage. randy
