Re: [apps-discuss] RFC 5785: Registration of .well-known services under HTTP to First Come

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

Roy,
That is not acceptable behavior to me and I hope it is not acceptable to the AD or Jari (Ccd)
Using that type of language to describe a proposal is creating an environment that  I consider to be hostile. Now given that I have done at least as much in the field as you, I am not likely to be intimidated. But plenty of folk would be if they received a message like that from you and then careful avoidance of an apology that followed.
I see this type of behavior as being a type of bullying. I do not like bullying. Trying to bully people and then accusing them of being in the wrong for complaining about it is a very common pattern.
You are going to treat everyone and their proposals with respect. The fact that you do not understand a proposal does not make it stupid.

Sent from Outlook Mobile

    _____________________________
From: Roy T. Fielding <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] RFC 5785: Registration of .well-known services under HTTP to First Come
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>, General discussion of application-layer protocols <[e-mail]>


> On Jan 14, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Roy T. Fielding <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jan 14, 2016, at 7:01 AM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Mark,
>>> 
>>> On 1/14/16 6:34 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>> You can also register /.well-known/phks-protocols/ and do whatever you like under it.
>>> 
>>> By your own words, that's simply not true unless there is a
>>> specification tied to it, and personally I think that's a very high
>>> bar.
>> 
>> Why is it a high bar to require a written description of the identified
>> space?  It doesn't require an IETF spec.  Mark is right -- if there is a
>> spec of why the identifier exists, the owner can do anything with further
>> identifiers under that space.  A review is desired because almost half of
>> all proposed uses of .well-known are poorly conceived and more effectively
>> accomplished with a single link.  But the review does not require consent.
>> 
>> For example, PHB wants to do a standard name search of SRV after doing a
>> DNS lookup and then use the SRV record to redirect to a reserved URI space.
>> Sorry, that is brain-numbingly poor use of those protocols.
> 
> How about you apologize for the insult and try again?
> 
> 
> You are certainly not expert enough in this space to be calling anyone
> or their proposal mind numbingly stupid.

I didn't.  You read it that way.  I am sorry that you read it that way, given
that I know you quite well to be extremely smart.  That does not, however, prevent
you from using a protocol in a brain-numbingly poor way.  The brain, in question, is mine.

Please, Phillip, don't for a second believe that you can abuse social etiquette
police as a way to silence criticism.  That isn't a skill worth displaying given
the amount of criticism you have poured on others.

....Roy