ietf-nntp IANA extension registry (was: Commetns on draft-15.pdf)

[ned+ietf-nntp at innosoft.com]

> Charles Lindsey <chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:

> > P58. S12 (Extensions)

> > We allow IANA registration of extensions defined in standards-track and
> > experimental RFCs. Should we also allow "provisional registration" (with
> > six months validity, say) for proposed extensions (with safeguards, such
> > as existence of an ietf draft and/or approval from an Area
> > Director). That might reduce the number of occasions when we are
> > contronted with a widely used command such as XOVER, and are forced to
> > redefine it as OVER before we can standardize it. I believe there are
> > precedents for provisional IANA registrations (for port number, for
> > example).

> I think this may be a good idea, but I don't know enough about the IANA
> registration process.  I think we need a consult with an AD on this point,
> unless someone else in the WG knows something more about how this normally
> works.

IANA registration processes are done according to whatever procedure you
define, so in theory there would be no problem with such a registry. That being
said, the main problem that registrations seek to solve is conflicting use.
Provisional registrations hurt rather than help in this regard, in that
their entire purpose is to encourage reuse of a string with different
syntax and semantics.

I don't believe any other application protocol has used a provisional
registry. Are we so short of strings that we really need this?

				Ned