Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP

[Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 09:40:12PM +0000, Bob Braden allegedly wrote:
> 3. The IANA Considerations draft should be published as an RFC,
> 	perhaps after updating.  Here are some issues that might affect
> 	this update.

All good ideas, but they still don't lead to integration.  In ATM you
find a (personal opinion) hodgepodge of overlapping capabilities in the
signaling IEs because of the lack of strict control and insistence on
coordinated engineering.  Keep the idea of a separate name space in the
back pocket and try for better.  Incrementally, perhaps have just one
more name class, "non-IETF" and insist on a statement that the group
proposing the new extension document how it interacts with existing
ones.  But, if you're going to do that, you could insist on that
documentation and not have the different categories.  Whatever you think
we can pull off.

> 		Must there be an Internet Draft? An RFC?  We have
> 		tended towards the RFC, but the result is less than
> 		satisfactory.  These extensions are typically
> 		documented in some 373- page document published (or
> 		more often hidden) by the other standards body.  The
> 		I-D/RFC that is written for registration presents only
> 		a superficial summary of the data structures to be
> 		defined, with no context of explanation,  and a
> 		reference to the real 373 page document.

There must be an RFC, even if status is informational.  documentation
must be in space that's visible to users of RSVP, and that means
publicly visible, not restricted to members of bodies who are requesting
the extensions.  

..Scott