Re: Registration policies for draft-freed-smtp-limits and elsewhere

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023, John C Klensin wrote:
> I agree with the small-vs-large distinction.  I'm, separately,
> getting increasingly skeptical of how well some of our
> "expert"-based models are working ...

> (1) Small registry/ scarce resources: Probably Standards Action,
> to protect the resource, to raise the odds of high-quality
> documentation, and to provide a discussion venue for options
> other than registration if needed.  One could think about some
> sort of "IETF consensus to register" model, but that would
> probably amount to that same thing  in practice and would
> require specifying a new process.
>
> (2.1) Registrant intends to provide good documentation, wants
> advice, community input, or whatever value official IETF
> approval brings.  Standards Action.
>
> (2.2) Registrant does not want any of those things, just to get
> the string registered.  Or tries for 2.1 and either loses or
> gives up.  FCFS. ...

> Is that more or less what you had in mind?

Looks good to me.

Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly