Re: IUTF8 pseudo-terminal mode

On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 00:39 -0500, Mouse wrote:
> >> So what needs to happen to get this standardized is for someone to
> >> write an internet-draft documenting this extension and advance it as
> >> either a working group item or as an individual submission.
> > That remains the case today.  The registration policy for that
> > registry is "IETF Consensus", which means that getting a new number
> > assigned requires publishing an RFC.  For this sort of thing, that
> > could happen relatively quickly, once someone writes an
> > internet-draft.
> 
> Or, anyone who's as fed up as I am with the "rough consensus, running
> code, and a whole lot of stupid hoop-jumping" way the IETF runs today
> and who holds a domain can define an extension, with no coordination
> with anyone else needed, and have it working in the time it takes to
> implement it.

Yes, you can certainly define a "private" channel extension to carry
this additional extension, document it, and other people can implement
it and interoperate.  That's a fine way to handle this -- the protocol
was designed to be extensible in that fashion -- and was even discussed
as a possibility in the original thread.  However, no one did that,
either.


I'm sorry if you feel that writing and submitting an internet-draft to
get number assigned in a finite namespace is "stupid hoop-jumping".
Someone asked about getting a number allocated, and Bill and I just
described what would be required given the policy _for that registry_ as
specified _by the secsh working group_ back when the documents were
published.  I'm pretty sure you were there at the time.

I happen to agree that "IETF Consensus" is too high a bar for this
particular registry.  Perhaps its time to revisit the registration
policies and switch to something like "Expert Review".  Then again,
given the number of times people have spoken up in the last 7 years
about wanting a number, maybe it just doesn't matter.

-- Jeff