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

[Russ Allbery]

Charles Lindsey <chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
> ned+ietf-nntp at innosoft.com writes:

>>> I think the essence of any form of "provisional" registration would
>>> have to be some mechanism for dregistration for the ones that never
>>> make it. Perhaps after six months, unless in the meantime there was at
>>> least an ietf draft in existence with a view to an eventual RFC.

>> On the contrary, the essence of such a scheme is that the string will
>> then be reused in an incompatible way. If this doesn't happen there is
>> no justification for ever removing anything from the registry, and
>> hence no justification for provisional registrations.

> Eh? Are you suggesting that if the header Foobar: is registered for use
> in the protocol "Foo", but the protocol "Foo" then falls into disuse (or
> never fell into use in the first place) then it should remain registered
> as being associated with that protocol until such time as someone
> proposes a new protocol "Baz", which just happens to incorporate a
> Foobar: header?

I would assume that Ned wasn't talking about headers at all, given that
the NNTP protocol doesn't care about headers.

I do think that the extension names from LIST EXTENSIONS should remain
reserved forever, even if an extension falls into disuse.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>