[apps-discuss] draft-nottingham-appsawg-happiana-00

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 01 March 2012 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26D221E8062 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:37:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.723
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.723 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eRAdVO5SpLqz for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:37:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27ACB21E8014 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:37:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.126.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4E17922E253 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:37:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 13:37:14 +1100
Message-Id: <9829E344-2092-4BC7-8F18-94582864A68F@mnot.net>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Subject: [apps-discuss] draft-nottingham-appsawg-happiana-00
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 02:37:18 -0000

As has been discussed, we've had a group of people talking for a while now about how we can make registries friendlier for non-IETF users, especially when they are used by people (e.g., developers) who aren't versed in the ways of the IETF.

I've just submitted a draft that tries to capture a portion of that discussion, mainly in terms of how registries are set up.

It is by no means complete, nor does it necessarily represent all of the people who have taken part in that discussion. 

If APPSAWG is amenable, this is something I (and some others, I think) would like to discuss here. It overlaps with some other work (e.g., some of Barry's work).

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-appsawg-happiana/

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/