Re: FW: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

not cc Bob; trying to get an IESG position before arguing with him:

I think overloading names of codepoints (which need to be identifiers 
reminding people of function) with semantics of registration function, 
standard they belong to and area of usefulness is a silly idea that should 
be nipped in the bud.

The right place for all this junk is in the documents SUPPORTING the 
registration, not in the name.
The ignorant deserve what they get.

                     Harald

who is happy that the Unicode codepoint
3034;VERTICAL KANA REPEAT WITH VOICED SOUND MARK UPPER HALF
is not named VERTICAL KANA REPEAT WITH VOICED SOUND MARK UPPER HALF FROM 
THE KANXI LEXICON AND CODIFIED IN GB 13030 BUT REALLY NOT FAVOURED BY THE 
JAPANESE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE IRG GROUP.



--On 27. januar 2003 10:40 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> 
wrote:

> IESG,
>
> Do we have an opinion on this?
>
> Bob Braden suggests we need to prefix assigned names in RSVP
> and or LDP namespaces with ITU-T so that people can see they
> did not go through "normal IETF" process (not sure this
> is 100% correct, they did go through the process for code
> point assignment, the technology behind it did not).
>
> My understanding is that initially (when Bob reviewed this
> as IANA RSVP expert) that Bob wondered if it were better to
> prefix with the function (like ASON or UNI or such) or
> with the organisation (Like ITU-T or OIF or ATM).
>
> I am a bit indifferent on this... but if any of us worry
> about it, then now is the time to immediately react.